Congress Needs New Leadership-- Replacing Steny Hoyer With Progressive Democrat McKayla Wilkes Would Be A Great Start

There are still 8 crackpot Republican governors who deserve to be removed from office for jeopardizing the lives of their states' citizens. None of these jerks will follow the Surgeon General and White House guidelines asking governors to impose stay-at-home orders. Other than swing state Iowa, this is the deranged Trumpist heartland

• Arkansas-- Asa Hutchinson
• Iowa-- Kim Reynolds
• Nebraska-- Pete Ricketts
• North Dakota-- Doug Burgum
• Oklahoma-- Kevin Stitt
• South Dakota-- Kristi Noem
• Utah-- Gary Herbert
• Wyoming-- Mark Gordon

Leadership matters-- and while Trump was celebrating the Dow Jones' bull trap yesterday, the NY Times revealed a government study Trump has suppressed which show projections that find stay-at-home orders, school closures and social distancing greatly reduce infections of the coronavirus, but lifting those restrictions after just 30 days will lead to a dramatic infection spike this summer and death tolls that would rival doing nothing. The risk they show of easing shelter-in-place orders currently in effect in most of the country undercut recent statements by President Trump that the United States could be ready to reopen 'very, very soon.'"

I wish I could say all the bad leadership comes from Republicans and all the Democrats represent the good leadership. But I can't. That's why that new McKayla Wilkes video is up top. If you haven't watched it yet, please watch it now. McKayla is running for a southern Maryland congressional seat occupied by Steny Hoyer and the video is very compelling, very powerful. McKayla is running on a largely Bernie platform-- from the Green New Deal to Medicare for All and free state colleges.

This morning, former Florida Congressman Alan Grayson reminded me that "One of the things that the Left used to be good at was setting the agenda-- from 1930 until around 1975. From then on, it was tax cuts for the rich, 'deregulation,' anti-abortion zealotry, whatever the NRA wanted, benefits cuts, military spending increases, and more tax cuts for the rich. What Bernie Sanders has tried to do, very patiently, is to try to take back the agenda from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and replace it with a new utilitarian agenda: the greatest good for the greatest number. He gives regular pols something to talk about. That a very influential position to have." And Bernie has influenced a large number of young men and women with values like his own-- AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib as well as candidates like Shan Chowdhury (NY), Audrey Denney (CA), Harper Morgan (OH), Tomas Ramos (NY), Shahid Buttar and, of course, McKayla.

Hoyer represents K Street, not the people living in Prince George's, Charles, St. Mary's and Calvert counties. Here he is, one of the most powerful member of Congress but without having ever addressed the housing crisis in his own district-- nor anywhere else. He has no plan and no interest and it isn't even mentioned on his website. McKayla, on the other hand, is campaigning loudly and clearly on affordable housing, promoting the national Housing Guarantee which includes a national cap on rent increases; federal loans and grants to municipalities and counties for the construction of twelve million new units of publicly- or communally-owned social housing over the next decade; renewing the nation’s commitment to public housing as a critical source of housing for our lowest-income communities reversing decades of disinvestment and privatization and fully funding the backlog of maintenance and repair needs; providing assistance to vulnerable communities and communities impacted by housing discrimination and unjust federal policies such as "redlining."

McKayla is also a proponent of providing meaningful foreclosure relief for homeowners impacted by predatory financing practices, unforeseen personal circumstances and environmental or economic disaster; providing federal rewards for localities that lift zoning restrictions in areas zoned exclusively for single-family housing; promoting Community Land Trusts, limited-equity co-operatives and other alternative, community-based ownership models as vehicles for developing affordable housing.

Yesterday, she told me she has been going even further, advocating measure to seriously tackle homelessness-- like instituting a Renters Bill of Rights to protect all renters from unfair eviction and sharp price increases. She would like to introduce a federal Right to Shelter, whereby the state is legally required to provide shelter for all, regardless of cost. She also supports increasing the accessibility of Universal Housing Vouchers by simplifying eligibility requirements, eliminating red tape and increasing funding for outreach and case support services ." So how about Steny? Crickets. He supports what the lobbyists tell him/pay him to support-- always has, always will.

Please consider hitting the 2020 Blue America congressional thermometer above and contributing what you can to McKayla's campaign. She's needs to get that video out widely and whatever you can afford will be completely appreciated.

Blue America Endorsement: Mckayla Wilkes (MD-05)

There's a big primary on April 28-- a kind of Northeast mini-Super Tuesday-- featuring New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island and Maryland. For the sake of argument say Bernie sweeps all 6 states. That could be the biggest news of the day, unless there's a major upset in Maryland's 5th district. The 5th, the southern part of the state, one big DC suburb that includes all or part of Prince George's, Charles, St. Mary's, Calvert and Anne Arundel counties. The district is very blue-- D+16. McCain, Romney and Trump, all won around a third of the vote. So what's the upset that could outshine the presidential race?

MD-05 has been the home base for the congressman from K Street since 1981. That would be Steny Hoyer and that would be far too long for anyone to be in Congress. Hoyer stopped representing his constituents long ago and is the most lobbyist-oriented member of Congress. As majority leader, he slows down anything and everything that smacks of progressivism-- and his opponent this cycle, Mckayla Wilkes, is all about progressivism. Blue America officially endorsed her campaign today and I asked her to tell Blue America members a little something about herself. If you'd like to help her replace Steny Hoyer-- and put someone who backs Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, criminal justice reform, free state college, money in politics reform... into the House where an incumbent who opposes all those things is now, please consider clicking on the Blue America 2020 congressional thermometer on the right. 





Running To Take Power Back From Special Interests
-by Mckayla Wilkes

My name is Mckayla Wilkes. Growing up, I didn’t believe in politics and I didn’t trust politicians. My father was murdered before I was born, and so my aunts helped raise me. After I lost my Aunt Sharon in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon, I needed help. I needed someone to talk to. Instead, I was incarcerated for skipping school. Like so many people across the country, I’ve experienced firsthand the exploitation of our healthcare and criminal justice system. Profit is centered instead of people, and corporate politicians are more beholden to their donors than their constituents.

My congressman, Steny Hoyer, takes money from the fossil fuel industry, private health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the war machine. He refuses to support Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, or ending the War on Drugs. Just this past year, he referred to cannabis as a “gateway drug.” As someone who was arrested for possession of marijuana, I know the toll that the racist and misguided War on Drugs has had on our communities. I’m the right person to represent Maryland’s 5th District because I can resonate with so many of the ordinary, working-class people here.

While Hoyer may have large corporate PAC donors, we can defeat him. Since 1990, no challenger to Hoyer has raised more than $6,000. I’ve already raised over $150,000 and I’m outpacing Hoyer in small-dollar donations 4-to-1. Moreover, we’re actually out in the community; I’m holding 8 town halls around the district this winter, and my team and I knocked on over 6,000 doors last weekend alone. Everywhere we go, it’s clear that Marylanders are fully ready for change. If we can speak to enough people before April 28th, we will win.

  I’m running because I believe it will take a movement to pass Medicare-for-All. It will take a movement to pass a Green New Deal, to end homelessness, to reform our criminal justice system, and to end the endless wars. I’m running to be a part of that movement and to bring in people like me who didn’t trust the political process. I’m running to take power back from special interests and be a representative who is responsive to her constituents. Above all, I’m running to create a fairer, more just, and more compassionate world. All I need is your help to do it.

Unlike Ordinary Voters, Steny Hoyer Doesn't Think The House Democrats Are Corrupt Enough

Voters hate both parties-- the Democrats a few points less than the Republicans. But apparently, the Democrats would like to catch up with the Republicans in the low esteem department-- and before the election. This week, The Economist released a new poll by YouGov that asked respondents what they think of both political parties. Among registered voters 46% have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party and 52% have an unfavorable opinion. The same voters said they have a 44% favorable opinion of the Republican Party and a 54% unfavorable opinion. Not that much different. Sad!

One of the most corrupt scumbags from either party-- Democratic majority leader Steny Hoyer (80)-- is pushing a plan, along with retiring House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (82), to reintroduce, albeit gradually and less toxically (at first), bringing back earmarks. Everyone hates earmarks-- except corrupt politicians. Politico reporters Ally Mutnick and Caitlin Emma wrote up the bare essentials of a potentially explosive story that could send the Democrats right backing the minority. They wrote that the Hoyer-Lowey plan "would allow members to secure cash for some pet projects at home."

There's a growing concern among the political staff to some swing-seat members that this could hurt them in November and undercut their campaign promises of fiscal responsibility. And it comes after the Democratic-led House unsuccessfully attempted to secure a congressional pay raise last year-- another vote which freshmen deemed politically risky.

Members from both parties have long stressed that reinstating earmarks doesn’t have to mean a return to wasteful and highly criticized pork-barrel spending in which federal funds flow to thousands of niche projects.

Instead, they contend that a system with improved controls could help lawmakers better deliver on their districts' needs. President Donald Trump even endorsed a return to earmarks in 2018, saying that it led to “great friendliness” among Republicans and Democrats.

Still, even a watered-down version of earmarks could provide Republicans with all the fodder they need to make biting political ads.

“We’re not going to have a majority if we bring back earmarks,” said a top aide to a freshman Democrat who flipped a GOP-held seat in 2018. “This is not what we came to Congress to do. Voters made it clear years ago that they were tired of pork and special interest spending in Washington and sweetheart deals.”

Advertising spots that aired prior to 2012 often reminded voters that their member of Congress supported the use of taxpayer dollars for pet projects in states hundreds of miles away. And some Democrats who voted in favor of a 2011 earmark ban taped ads touting their work to curb government spending.

...In a letter to fellow lawmakers last February, Lowey announced that “there is currently not the necessary bipartisan, bicameral agreement” to revisit the contentious practice of specifying that federal dollars must go to certain projects.

But the New York Democrat added that legislators in both chambers “must discuss the issue of earmarks in our respective caucuses and conferences to determine member preferences, solicit ideas to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and when applicable, change rules to permit members to request earmarks.”

I spoke with two young women, both progressive reformers-- whose campaigns revolt around very anti-corruption messaging-- how they took the news about Hoyer trying to resuscitate earmarks. Mckayla Wilkes is running for the suburban south Maryland seat occupied by Hoyer. She told me that "House Democratic leadership considering a return to earmarks flies in the face of what Democratic voters have been calling out for: no more back room deals, no more influence peddling, no more payoffs. A return to earmarks threatens vulnerable freshman members, who must then explain to their progressive constituents why the party is returning to this corrupt practice. Steny Hoyer has been notoriously shifty in his efforts to maintain a moderate majority in the House. We all remember the notorious call to Levi Tillemann where Hoyer encouraged him to drop out in favor of the more moderate DCCC backed candidate. Not to mention Hoyer’s DCCC blacklist, which cuts off DCCC business to any consultants working on behalf of a primary challenger. This shady tactic serves to prevent dissenting progressive voices like mine from having the tools, staff, data, comms and fundraising needed to compete against incumbents. If it wasn’t for grassroots donations of money, talent, and time, I would be unable to compete, and Hoyer’s sleazy tactics would be successful. We as a party can’t let this continue."

Rachel Ventura's suburban and small town district is west of Chicago and she's also running against a corrupt conservative, New Dem Bill Foster. Rachel told me that "We must have a government and economy that works for everyone. Earmarks further corruption and special interests. Instead we need to use our tax dollars to help close the wealth gap through a federal jobs guarantee, living wage jobs, and infrastructure investments all across this country. Passing the Green New Deal ensures our dollars ARE going back to our communities to help everyone, not just a few pet projects. We need to pass policies that help everyone like Medicare for All and as your next congresswoman of IL-11, I plan to push for these two bills my first term in office."

Embarrassingly, Pelosi And Hoyer Led Most House Democrats Away From Impeachment... Here's How A Cross Section Of House Candidates Responded

In 2018, corrupt conservative, Darren Soto, pretended he was a progressive during his primary battle with Alan Grayson. After he won, he stopped pretending and admitted he's a member of the right-of-center, Wall Street owned and operated New Dems. Yesterday, like virtually all the New Dems, Soto voted against impeaching Trump. It reminded me on one of Grayson's brilliant TV spots which focused on impeachment. Watch closely. The point is simple: "I'll vote for impeachment; Soto won't." And Grayson was... clairvoyant? The other conservative Grayson ran against years ago, Daniel Webster, also voted against impeachment yesterday, but at least he has an excuse-- he's a Republican racist, just like Trump.

Briana Urbina is a progressive Maryland attorney and activist taking on Stony Hoyer who's at the very heart of the problem with congressional Democrats."Steny," she told me right after the vote,"is nothing if not consistent. He has the courage to call out Democrats he disagrees with but won't stand up for his constituents in the 5th district of Maryland and our party by voting for impeachment."

Eva Putzova is running against a Hoyer ally, "ex"-Republican state legislator, now a Blue Dog, Tom O'Halleran, who no one imagined would vote for impeaching Trump. "I would have voted to impeach the most dangerous, unstable president this country has ever seen," Eva told me yesterday. "He has committed impeachable offenses and it's the duty of our Congress to hold him accountable. Today's vote in the House indicates a lack of leadership. My opponent was on the wrong side of history. Again."

Another Hoyer ally, corrupt New Dem Gregory Meeks, is in a Queens district that overwhelmingly favors impeachment. But Meeks voted to kill Al Green's impeachment bill. Shaniyat Chowdhury, just back from captaining a championship rugby team in Australia-- winning the Emerging Nations Rugby League Cup-- told me that "Meeks has been talking about challenging Trump the last three years and concluded it with cowardly voting against impeachment. Our country does not need anymore lip services from false prophets who claim to do one thing and their actions speak for another. Trump is a bully. Congress is supposed to stand up to him. Voting to not impeach a president who is clearly unfit to run a government, undermines our democracy. It sends a message to our kids that bullying is okay. It is not okay! There are consequences to bullying, and we need elected officials who will have the courage to stand up to the face of bigotry without politicizing ethics and the people of this nation."

Mark Gamba is also up against a reactionary Hoyer ally, Oregon Blue Dog, Kurt Schrader, who had no problem in voting to table Al Green's impeachment proposal. Unlike Schrader, Gamba felt Congress has a duty to hold Trump accountable for his perfidy. "Donald Trump," he told us this morning, "is the most dangerous and deranged president in American history. His continued presence in the White House only serves to cause our country to become more divided. More angry. More dysfunctional, and, frankly, weaker. All logical efforts to remove him from office must be explored. Clearly, deep strategy must be considered when both houses of Congress will not engage in this process. However I believe that members of Congress are meant to not only represent their people, they are meant to lead. Leadership sometimes requires bold action, something thin on the ground in Washington DC,  particular amongst the status quo corporate Democrats and almost all of the Republicans."

The more I look at this list of Democrats who voted to let Trump off the hook yesterday, the more I realize that they're all Steny Hoyer allies. Stephen Lynch, another New Dem, is the worst member of Congress from Massachusetts. Brianna Wu is working hard to beat him in a primary. Last night she said, "I wish I could say I'm surprised by Rep. Lynch's vote to table the impeachment resolution today, but I'm not. This is a man who just recently said that bringing impeachment hearings would just be Democrats 'blowing off steam.' Apparently, the rule of law means nothing to him. Trump publicly invited foreign intervention in our elections. Is that not treasonous? The Mueller Report found 10 examples of possible obstruction of justice by this president. What more does the Democratic leadership and Stephen Lynch need to begin to hold Trump accountable? Lynch is worried about the possible political ramifications of bringing impeachment proceedings against Trump. I am concerned with the rule of law in this country and making sure that Trump is held accountable so lawlessness does not become a precedent for the presidency. Politics be damned. The House must begin impeachment proceedings NOW."

As for Democrats taking on Republicans already, Missouri progressive, Kathy Ellis was surprised to see incumbent Jason Smith vote against impeachment. "Smith," she told me, "has shown us time and time again who he really is-- a rubber stamp for Trump’s damaging policies. It comes as no surprise then that he voted against impeachment, as well as the House statement calling his recent comments racist. Our country deserves a leader who is honest, hardworking, and accepting of all. Racism has no place in our country, especially in the White House and in Congress. It is time for President Trump to be held accountable for his actions and his words. Missouri’s 8th District needs a Representative who understands that and is willing to hold our leaders accountable when they fail us.”

Maggie Oliver's primary opponent, Pelosi lap-dog Ben Ray Lujan, voted against impeachment... of course

The last guy who's ever going to vote to impeach Trump is Devin Nunes, more of an accomplice than just an enabler. Dary Rezvani, the progressive Democrat taking him on this cycle: "He voted against impeachment, he voted against condemning his racist statements. Devin is complacent in a time of pure evil. He said on a local news station today that he has heard nothing from his continuents saying that he should have condemned the statements which is an outright lie; multiple groups have called. His complacency enabled one of the most racist things I’ve seen to date, a "send her home" chant at a North Carolina rally. I am embarrassed that Nunes is associated with the Central Valley. I apologize to the rest of the United States that we have failed in getting him out. Devin must be extremely lonely and Trump must be the only person who gives him attention. Impeachment must start immediately."

Kim Williams is another progressive Democrat running in California's Central Valley. Her target isn't a conservative Republican; it's a conservative Democrat-- Blue Dog Jim Costa, the worst Democrat from California. Costa, of course, voted against impeaching Trump and Kim spoke out about that yesterday: "Instead of making political calculations and weighing whether impeachment might impact the reelection prospects of Democrats in Republican-leaning districts, our House majority failed to do its job. Congress has an obligation to hold this president accountable regardless of the political outcome and especially in the face of such extreme and persistent bigotry. It is especially troubling that our representative, Jim Costa, a conservative Democrat from a safe blue district chose inaction over the community he serves. Unlike Costa, I would have denounced Trump’s white supremacist agenda and voted to begin impeachment hearings."

Like all the Trump-friendly Blue Dogs, Dan Lipinski voted against impeachment. His primary rival, Marie Newman, saw it differently: "I find it horrifying that Congressman Lipinski refuses to condemn the president for the inhumane camps at the border and the absolutely racist marks, so I am not at all surprised he refuses to vote for the start of impeachment proceedings. He will continue to protect Trump."

Mike Siegel didn't even bother mentioning the GOP incumbent-- co-architect of the "babies in cages" and family separation policies of the Trump Regime. Michael McCaul would be with Nunes fighting against impeachment 'til the bitter end. Siegel took a different tack: "Thank you to Houston's own, Rep. Al Green, for continuing to push for accountability for the President. We don't have the full caucus on board yet, but this is a strong step forward toward beginning the essential process of an impeachment inquiry."

Remember, as we said earlier-- there were 95 Democrats willing to do the right thing instead of coddling and enabling the modern-day Nero. In 2020, let's get rid of as many of the enabling culprits from both parties as we can and replace them with more patriotic and wholesome new members of a new Congress. If Pelosi and Hoyer want to fund his concentration camps and block impeachment, they both need to be treated the same as Kevin McCarthy and his Confederate Trumpist team. So lets start with the primaries... by replacing Blue Dogs and New Dems with progressives-- the reason I've included the thermometer on the right. Please don't stand by while the neo-fascist in the White House turns our country into something our fathers and grandfathers and millions of American patriots have fought against.

Should Members Of Congress Get An Increase In Pay?

Crooked scumbag Steny Hoyer-- who had an operative and mutual friend tell me he doesn't like being called a "crooked scumbag"-- was forced to withdraw, for now, his 18% congressional pay-raise plan. There's been a lively debate about the pros and cons of the pay raise. My bottom line is that $174,000 a year PLUS a very generous expense account (members' MRAs are over a million dollars a year now, although it can't be used for home rental) and full health insurance is more than enough-- in fact, too much, especially because their job evaluations by the American people are so dismal. 

This post by David Hawkings was published by Roll Call last year: Wealth of Congress: Richer Than Ever, but Mostly at the Very Top. "The people’s representatives," he wrote, "just keep getting richer, and doing so faster than the people represented. The cumulative net worth of senators and House members jumped by one-fifth in the two years before the start of this Congress, outperforming the typical American’s improved fortunes as well as the solid performance of investment markets during that time... [T]he median minimum net worth (meaning half are worth more, half less) of today’s senators and House members was $511,000 at the start of this Congress, an upward push of 16 percent over just two years-- and quintuple the median net worth of an American household, which the Federal Reserve pegged at $97,300 in 2016. The financial disparity between those who try to govern and those who are governed is almost certainly even greater than that."

The arguments in favor of the raise include practical considerations like how hard it is to buy a house in the DC area on that kind of money, how hard it is to maintain two households, one in DC and one back home, and how high the cost of living is in the DC area. Then others have a slightly more abstract argument, namely that to compete for the best people we have to be offering good money and that Congress should just be a playground for the wealthy. Let me bat these down one at a time:

1- Few members buy their own homes until they retire from Congress to become rich lobbyists; they rent.
2- Many members have roommates, usually other members of Congress. I have long thought Congress should build a large apartment building and let members rent subsidized apartments.
3-There are plenty of working class and middle class families who manage to survive within the area's high cost of living. We're elected representatives, not a House of Lords.
4- The "best people" aren't just in it for the money and in any case, $174,000 a year plus expenses and healthcare is very good compensation, especially for a non-executive job.
5- Congress already is a playground for the wealthy and I never heard a working class person sneer at the money congressional positions offer.
6- One more thing-- if, as some of the members claim, it's really all about their staff getting market value salaries, give the staff raises, not the members.

Last week, writing for Politico, Sarah Ferris and Heather Caygle reported that Hoyer is being roundly attacked for his proposal to raise congressional pay. Some of the reasons, though, were just typical cowardice from the careerists.

The No. 2 House Democrat is taking fire from across the caucus after trying to enact the salary bump, a move some vulnerable Democrats fretted would be politically disastrous and could even cost them their seats next year.

In the broader caucus, the majority of Democrats are on board with Hoyer, arguing that congressional salaries for lawmakers and staff have failed to keep pace with skyrocketing costs of housing in the Washington area, as well as back home. But many members are reluctant to speak up, privately complaining the attack ad basically writes itself. Hoyer is now waging war on multiple fronts-- an ugly public relations battle, a fraught fight with Republicans and fierce criticism within his own party, including some close allies-- in effort to give lawmakers a cost-of-living boost.

In a closed-door meeting Monday night, Hoyer fended off members of his own leadership team in a testy exchange. Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, who leads the Democratic Caucus’ messaging arm, said he would vote against the pay hike on the floor. But Hoyer pushed back, telling Cicilline that his spot at the leadership table sometimes required taking tough votes, according to multiple sources familiar with the conversation.

...Other top Democrats sided with Hoyer in the meeting about ending the pay-freeze, including Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic Caucus chair [and always the most pathetic shill in the entire House]. And multiple lawmakers have approached Hoyer privately and thanked him for continuing to push the issue.

The perennially contentious issue is causing a split, pitting many battleground freshmen against longtime Democrats who say they’re fighting for fair pay for their staffs.

“I do not pay attention to the frontliners. Most of them are scared of their shadows. At some point you have to do what’s best for the institution,” said Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, who backed Hoyer over the pay issue in a recent meeting with GOP leaders. “I absolutely think there’s a majority of members who are for this idea.”

Hoyer remains defiant even after Democrats yanked a spending bill, typically considered the least contentious measure of all, because it would have forced a vote on the pay issue. Hoyer and other supporters argue that it’s not a pay increase but simply an adjustment to keep salaries in line with rising living costs after a decade of stagnant wages-- a position Hoyer has taken for decades.

The Maryland Democrat told reporters Tuesday that lawmakers would indeed vote on the $4,500 pay increase in the coming months, and insisted he can still make a truce with Republicans who object to the pay boost.

“Unlike some members, I’m pretty out front,” Hoyer told reporters Tuesday. “I think [a cost-of-living] adjustment is appropriate. Members have now seen 10 years of a freeze. We don’t want to have only rich people here.”

An aide to Hoyer said the majority leader will talk with Democrats and Republicans about the issue to see whether they'll address it in an appropriations bill or elsewhere.

But within the Democratic Caucus, a small group of lawmakers is publicly and privately fuming at Hoyer, arguing that he consulted Republican leaders but not his own caucus.

“I don’t think it was wise at this moment, that’s for sure,” said Rep. Dan Kildee, who represents the city of Flint, Mich., where the average annual income is about $26,000. Members of Congress earn $174,000. “When working Americans are not seeing their wages go up, I can’t imagine how we do this.”

“A lot of us think that it’s the wrong move and the wrong time," added Rep. Ben McAdams of Utah.. "I think people do expect to work together, but let’s work to solve health care and the rising cost of prescription drugs before we work together to give ourselves a raise."

McAdams, one of Democrats’ most vulnerable freshmen, expressed his opposition to Hoyer and introduced an amendment that would have blocked the increase.

Hoyer-- who often touts his ties to the party’s moderate members, including many in the historic freshman class-- has suddenly found himself at odds with many of the new Democratic members who helped deliver the majority.

Instead, he has won support from progressives, including freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)-- who tweeted in favor of the cost-of-living adjustment-- [proving not even the best members are right all the time] while hearing an earful from battleground Democrats like McAdams and Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-SC).

But not all swing-district Democrats are looking to avoid a floor fight on the issue.

“I don’t need the increase personally. But not everybody is in that position, and I want the country served by the best and brightest,” said Rep. Dean Phillips, a wealthy Minnesota businessman who ousted a GOP incumbent in 2018. “I think Mr. Hoyer is looking out for people, and that’s what we should be doing.”

A piece of crap like Phillips couldn't possibly understand that "the best and the brightest" doesn't usually ever coincide with the "greediest and most selfish." How about raising the minimum wage first, New Dem asshole? Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), co-chair of the Progressive Caucus noted that "The expenses that go along with this position are substantial. We have to be able to explain some of this, but in the end, we want to fight for every worker to get raises every year, that should be part of our platform."

Hoyer’s plan required buy-in from House Republican leaders-- an accord that he thought he had secured in a private meeting with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA).

But the party leaders’ hold-hands-and-jump strategy backfired after the National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s campaign arm, failed to follow directives from McCarthy not to attack Democrats on the issue.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, McCarthy would not publicly endorse the idea. But he didn’t rule it out, and his talking points closely matched Hoyer’s-- arguing that Congress shouldn’t be run by the rich and pointing out that the executive branch has been taking cost-of-living increases even as Congress froze its own pay.

“I do not want Congress, at the end of the day, to only be a place that millionaires serve. This should be a body of the people. And I think it’s something that should be looked at it,” McCarthy said.

Plus... imagine what Trump would have to say while he was vetoing the stupid bill anyway!

With The Green Parties Sweeping To New Heights In Europe, It's Important To Understand That The U.S. Equivalent Is NOT The Democratic Party-- At Least Not Yet

MD-05 primary voters will choose between a Climate denier and a Climate activist

On Memorial Day, the NY Times ran an important story by Coral Davenport and Mark Landler that has gone largely unseen, Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science. They make the point that Trump rolled back environmental regulations, pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, brushed aside dire predictions about the effects of climate change, and turned the term 'global warming' into a punch line rather than a prognosis. But what they're planning is even worse:

In the next few months, the White House will complete the rollback of the most significant federal effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, initiated during the Obama administration. It will expand its efforts to impose Mr. Trump’s hard-line views on other nations, building on his retreat from the Paris accord and his recent refusal to sign a communiqué to protect the rapidly melting Arctic region unless it was stripped of any references to climate change.

The U.S. Geological Survey, now controlled by Trump appointee James Reilly, widely considered the least intelligent of all the former astronauts, "has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously." The purpose is to distort assessments of the future impact of climate change "because the biggest effects of current emissions will be felt after 2040."

In our radio segment yesterday, David Feldman and I discussed the shocking electoral success Green parties had across Europe in Sunday's elections. All the polling predicted immense gains for the Trumpist neo-fascist extremists and none had so much as mentioned the Greens. Other than in Italy, where there appears to be a genuine craving for another Mussolini-- Trump, amigo Matteo Salvini-- the neo-fascists made much smaller gains than predicted. And the big story was the unexpected victories of the Greens. Not a factor in an Italy and Austria, each bent on re-embracing fascism, nor in Hungary and Poland, where fascism has already taken root, the Greens vaulted into second place in Germany and third place in France, stunned Spain by picking up 4 of the country's 54 seats, gained another 4 U.K. seats as younger voters abandoned Labour, and picked up both EU Parliament seats and local council seats in Ireland. In fact the Green Party candidate, Ciarán Cuffe, came in first in Dublin-- by far, beating the Fine Gael candidate 63,849 to 16,473.

What Feldman wanted to know was if this Green success in Europe meant progressives would have more success in the U.S. That calls for a nuanced response. First of all-- other than on environment and Climate-- Greens aren't necessarily progressive in Europe. The sharp rise in Green voters across the better-educated countries of Europe was primarily caused by two factors. First of all voters under 40 have been growing exasperated that the mainstream right-of-center and left-of-center parties that dominate most of Europe have virtually ignored their growing concerns about the effects of Climate Change (so, same as here). But what happened Sunday was coincident with anger towards the mainstream parties on may unrelated issues-- Brexit, for example.

The politicization of young people over Climate issues is probably as strong in America as in Europe. But in Europe Green parties have been building political machines for decades. That hasn't been the case in the U.S., where Climate activists have been struggling to gain a significant foothold inside a Democratic Party that is riven with grotesque corruption and a geriatric leadership that is two generations away from "getting" the problem. In the advanced European countries the Green Party is now mainstream. Their ideas are catching fire within the Democratic Party, but the party leadership still sees those ideas as a fad. Dinosaurs like Hoyer, Clyburn and Pelosi will have to die off-- at least politically-- before those ideas and that energy came overcome opposition from the younger leaders handpicked by the older leaders to replicate themselves-- whether a Hakeem Jeffries, a Ben Ray Luján or a Cheri Bustos. When AOC took out the designated Democratic leadership's successor to Pelosi, Joe Crowley, reeking of corruption (now a scumbag lobbyist), she struck the loudest political chord for Climate ever heard in this country.

As we saw last night, one of the most potent weapons Steny Hoyer's primary opponent, Briana Urbina, is wielding against him is his own stubborn and clueless refusal to understand the urgency of dealing with Climate Change. Urbina is in her 30's; in 2 weeks Hoyer will turn 80. His home-- and K Street-- will be underwater before he groks the crucial nature of Climate Change.

Heather Grabbe, director of the Open Society European Policy Institute, a think tank, explained that "Neoliberalism has triumphed in economic policy, with both the center-right and center-left adopting it. And then the economic crisis came along... The left did not provide alternatives." Huge numbers of German voters told exit-polling firms that Climate and the environment were their top concern as they made their final decision about who to vote for. In Germany that benefited the Green Party, which took 21% of the vote while the Social Democrats (the German equivalent of the Democrats) took 15.6% and the CDU (the German equivalent of the pre-Trump Republicans) took 28.7%.

If Germany has a politician who is their version of Trump, it would be the disgusting Alexander Gauland, head of the neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany (AfD). After the elections he recognized that it was neither the CDU nor the Social Democrats but the Greens who he called "our main enemy." Aside from hating Muslims, Jews, and foreigners, the AfD hates Science and denies man-made Climate Change.

Out of 235 Democrats in Congress, only 93 have signed on as co-sponsors to AOC's Green New Deal Resolution, several of whom are non-believers, just trying to avoid primary defeats. Not even all the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have signed on-- not to mention Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn-- and the resolution is being actively opposed by the increasingly powerful Republican wing of the Democratic Party (the Blue Dogs and New Dems). Progressive leaders like Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Ted Lieu, Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky, Jamie Raskin, Jim McGovern (MA), Mark Pocan and Judy Chu are on-board, but of all those dozens of freshman members, just 10 are cosponsors besides AOC-- Rashida Tlaib (MI), Ayanna Pressley (MA), Mike Levin (CA), Joe Neguse (CO), Chuy Garcia (IL), Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL), Deb Haaland (NM), Veronica Escobar (TX), Lori Trahan (MA) and Jahana Hayes (CT).

First-time voters in Germany overwhelmingly picked the Green Party as their TOP choice on Sunday. Why should they pick the Democrats while Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn-- practically, and effectively, Climate Change deniers-- lead it in Congress, not to mention Status Quo Joe?

Steny Hoyer Draws A Credible Primary Opponent

The best thing about my Memorial Day weekend was meeting a young woman in Maryland who's decided to take on Steny Hoyer. Briana Urbina was born in AOC's district in the Bronx. Replacing Hoyer will be even more difficult than it was replacing Crowley but after spending some time speaking with Briana, I'm convinced she's got the makings of another great congresswoman, like Alexandria. She wrote on her campaign website that "as both a lawyer and a teacher Briana witnessed the impact of failed policies at the state, local and federal level. As a mother and a caregiver she has experienced the failure of our federal government to provide for people with disabilities. As a Black Latina woman raising an African American child, she is constantly made aware of the impacts of systemic discrimination on communities of color. As a woman with 14 years sober, she has a unique understanding of the addiction crisis facing our country. And as a member of the LGBT community, she is inspired by the progress achieved over the last decade while acknowledging that progress is not permanent if it is not protected. Briana wants to represent [her district] in Congress because she is connected to community and has the energy to take on the challenges of the 21st century. Briana is eager to put forth new ideas, propose new initiatives and amplify the voices of the people in our community."

She supports the kinds of cutting edge progressive legislation Hoyer wants nothing to do with, from Medicare for All and the Green New Deal to meaningful criminal justice reform and meaningful campaign finance reform.

Briana authored her first Letter to the Editor at age 12, about the bigotry of low expectations by the teachers at her alma matter elementary school and actively participated in political activities throughout her youth. This is an open letter to Steny Hoyer she sent me last night:


Dear Congressman,

I am a proud Marylander. As a millennial with massive student loan debt and a middle-income salary, I was blessed to find a home 9 miles from the center of Washington, DC and just 30 miles from the beaches of Calvert County. My 9-mile commute to work is accessible by metro or by car. The train is definitely a more practical way to commute into DC. You don't have to worry about parking, and you can read the Express newspaper along the way. However, any DMV commuter will tell you that practical does not mean reliable. On a good day, my metro ride is about 45 minutes. But on a normal day it can take an hour. When WMATA came up with their motto "Back to Good," I could not help but laugh that the goal was to upgrade to mediocre.

Driving, however, is a different story. On a good day, my drive is about an hour during rush hour. But if there is even one event in DC, you can plan for a 90-minute drive. Traveling nine miles should not take an hour. Ask any DMV resident and they will tell you that traffic and time spent commuting shapes their lives. This is one of many reasonsI support the Green New Deal.

The Green New Deal calls for the "overhauling" of our transportation systems in order to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. It calls for, "(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and (iii) high-speed rail." This could include projects like fixing the metro, expanding MARC rail service to Waldorf, connecting Montgomery and Prince George's counties by constructing the Purple Line, and providing rail access to Ocean City!

Congressman Hoyer, you are a fellow DMV commuter. You live in Mechanicsville, MD. You have been known to "go hard" for what you believe in. You spent the better part of this winter attacking progressive members of our caucus. You were one of the first Democrats to announce that you didn't think the House would move to impeach before reading the full Mueller report. You are certainly a man who speaks his mind, and over the course of your 52-year career in elected office, you have not been known to mince words.

So naturally, I would expect that you would support a bill that not only aims to save the planet from excess greenhouse emissions, but at minimum, could help our respective commutes. Nah. In fact, you actually worked to limit the legislative and subpoena powers from the new Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. Could this have anything to do with the $409,470 in campaign contributions from PACs and individuals affiliated with the oil and gas industry you accepted over the course of your career? Or the $43,750 you received in the 2018 election? Your top donor in the 2018 election was Exelon, a massive energy company that operates dozens of fossil fuel plants. You've also been complicit on helping Calvert County fight against the dangerous LNG plant near Cove Point. However, you are not alone. None of the top 25 Democratic recipients of fossil fuel linked contributions in the last election cycle are among those co-sponsoring the Green New Deal.

I am writing this in hopes that you change your mind and decide to lead alongside young innovative, non-corporate funded representatives, like Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. I know you have the capacity to speak out for the things you find important, since you were more than willing to join the Republicans at AIPAC in attacking the first woman to wear a hijab in Congress. Were you just trying to secure another $106,000 in Pro-Israel PAC money to fund your next election?

I support the Green New Deal for moral and practical reasons. I plan to be around for another 50+ years, and I would like to have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and access to public transit. My son is 11 years old, and I hope for a better future for him. Coastal communities and many other parts of our country are in jeopardy of lethal storms due to environmental issues associated with climate change. Congressman, I know you have grandchildren; don't you want the same for them? Aren't you tired of sitting in traffic? Aren't you worried about our coastlines, the welfare of Puerto Rico, or the fire ravaged communities of California? Doesn't your title require that you lead our party instead of micro-managing it? Leadership requires the courage to act, its not a title, it's a calling.

Sincerely,

The Progressive Choice for Congress from the Maryland 5th district, Briana Urbina

What I Learned Last Night

In 1879, Fyodor Dostoevsky, gave us "The Grand Inquisitor"-- a poem within The Brothers Karamazov-- widely considered one of the greatest pieces of literature in history. This week, James Inman wrote "If Jesus came back today and saw Notre Dame he'd say, 'Fuck your church. What is this stained glass bullshit? Back in my day we worshipped God out in a field. Oh you saved my crown of thorns? Whoop-de-fucking-do!' Then you'd plot to kill him again for speaking the truth." Same-same-- just a shorter and less ambiguous version.

An out-of-town friend asked me to meet him at Crossroads (on Melrose), my favorite vegan restaurant. There was no traffic so I got there really early. Across the street is a small office building and the pot shop I used when I needed CBD oil after chemo is-- or was-- in that building. But I didn't know about the "was." So I figured I'd stop there and get some CBD balm for my neuropathy. But there'll gone. So how to kill half an hour at 8pm?

Three blocks away my former favorite non-vegan restaurant, Ink, had closed down but was replaced with a lovely-looking shop called Cookies. Hmmm... maybe they have sugar-free cookies, I thought. I decided to walk over there and take a look. But gee, there was a helluva lot of security in from of the store. Maybe it was a grand opening. I'll just make like I belong-- the way Paul Kantner taught me to-- and slide right in. It seemed to work; I got right through the door. It was bright and shiny and modern and kind of nice. "Can I see your ID?" asked the lady inside the front door. I took out my driver's license and she did some kind of high tech picture of it. And then I noticed the smell. It was a nice smell, but very strong. Pot? Was I actually in a pot store? I was. She asked me to wait til as associate could come over and show me around. I said I could show myself around. "Nope," she said. The associate was fantastic. He showed me around a really large cannabis emporium with more products than I could have imagined. I bought some of the balm. They charged a huge tax for this stuff. I was shocked. I complained. They said, "Oh, we have a senior discount." It was 10% and I was happy-- happy to pay less and happy to know that seniors pay less for cannabis in the 21st Century.

So, I can't say who my out-of-town friend was. Because he (or she) told me something in strict confidence. "Please don't put this on your blog." I asked if I could but without his (or her) name on it. A role of the eyes was immediately accepted by me as an OK. Here's what I learned: After the GOP started their jihad against Ilhan Omar, senior Democrats by and large refused to publicly back her. Jerry Nadler was a conspicuous exception. Eventually someone pulled a very half-assed defense out of Pelosi. But... and here it comes... while this was raging in the media-- including death threats against Ilhan-- the #2 Dem in the House, Steny Hoyer was workin' it hard behind the scenes. Workin' what? Oh, yeah... working to get Ilhan kicked off the House Foreign Affairs Committee. After all, no one is supposed to be on there without being pro-Likud anyway. right? By the way, a progressive woman named Mckayla Wilkes is primarying Hoyer. We'll be talking about her more, of course, but meanwhile... please consider giving Ilhan a hand by tapping that thermometer on the right.





And one more thing! The folks at Now This who put this clip together should all get a Pulitzer for something. Remember when we had a real president and when Fox News was the disloyal opposition, instead of the state propaganda arm? Well this clip is meant to show you what Fox would sound like if they were covering Señor Trumpanzee the same way-- the exact same way in fact-- they used to cover President Obama. In their own words:

Is Impeachment On The Table, Madame Speaker?

Short version: Russia helped Trump and Trump welcomed their help. Whatever Barr and Trump cooked up for Fox and Trump's dumbbell 35% of the country, Mueller's report is a cornucopia of collusion and obstruction-- every damn thing you ever thought he and his treasonous enablers might have done. Mueller's got it all in there-- except for the pee-tape and a confession from Trump and his family of grifters. Soon after he read the report, Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, stated flatly: "Whether these acts are criminal or not, whether the obstruction was criminal or not, or whether these contacts were sufficiently illicit to rise to the level of criminal conspiracy, they are unquestionably dishonest, unethical, immoral, and unpatriotic." He left off one word: impeachable. Next move is Pelosi's.

Mueller certainly found that Putin was gung ho on making sure Trump would become president. He kept in touch and his gang and Trump's gang occasionally worked together to further the same ends, which Trump had Cohen continue with the Trump Tower Moscow project-- while overtly lying about it to the voters. There's no doubt that Mueller believed Kushner-in-law and Junior were both committing criminal acts.

Mueller makes it clear that there was very active coordination in regard to the stolen DNC e-mails and that Trump personally knew what was going on before anything happened. Manafort appears to be a key intermediary and went as far as targeting Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the Kremlin's attention.

And on top of that-- lot and lots and lots of obstruction of justice-- and really blatantly so. The first thing he did when he heard Mueller had been appointed Special Counsel was to say his "presidency is over." I guess he wasn't counting on a risk-adverse Nancy Pelosi letting him off the hook. Trump dangled pardons in front of every one of his enablers and co-conspirators.

Garrett Graf's take for Wired-- The Mueller Report Is Much Worse For Trump Than Barr Let On-- makes the point that if Trump isn’t guilty of obstruction of justice, who ever could be? Mueller's report outlined spent well over 100 pages outlining how Trump "reacted to and fumed over the Russia probe, seeking to undermine it, curtail it, and even fire the special counsel himself." Barr's behavior since getting his hands on the report has been an integral part of the cover-up and p.r. campaign to give Trump cover. Barr misrepresented Mueller’s reasoning for not making a "traditional prosecutorial decision" on the obstruction half of his investigation... "Moreover, Mueller makes clear that part of the reason he couldn’t find a prosecutable conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia was because he was stymied by lies, obstruction, and evidence deleted by his investigative targets. 'The Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report,' Mueller wrote. In one specific example, Mueller says he was unable to reconcile the purpose of a long-mysterious meeting in the Seychelles because two key figures, campaign chair Paul Manafort and Blackwater founder Erik Prince, had deleted their exchanges about the meeting."

Barr should resign or be impeached

The attorney general has implied that Mueller left that choice to Barr. In truth, the report makes clear that Mueller felt constrained by the Justice Department policy that a sitting president could not be indicted. Don’t mistake lack of prosecution, in other words, for absence of wrongdoing. “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president did not obstruct justice, we would so state,” Mueller’s report says. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Mueller then points to Congress, not the attorney general, as the body appropriate to answer the question of obstruction. As Mueller wrote in what seems to be all but a referral for impeachment proceedings, “The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balanced and the principle that no person is above the law.”

That the contents of the Mueller report diverges so sharply from Barr’s portrayal has long seemed possible, based on his initial summary and subsequent appearance before Congress. Barr was appointed, after all, after writing a memo casting the Mueller investigation as illegitimate. In the hours leading up to the report’s release, that suspicion increased sharply.

Ninety minutes before the public had a chance to read the report, Barr held an odd and at times curt 22-minute press conference in which he re-summarized his views, presenting an argument that made him sound more like the president’s personal defense attorney rather than the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. “The special counsel found no collusion,” said Barr. “That’s the bottom line.” Barr went on to stress how frustrating the Russia probe was to the president, asking reporters to consider Donald Trump’s emotions and mental state.

Barr further praised Donald Trump for “fully cooperating,” ignoring the president’s refusal to sit for an interview with Mueller’s investigators, along with the fact that Trump tried at least once to fire the special counsel, consistently attacked the legitimacy of the investigation in public, and openly encouraged witnesses not to cooperate. Barr also never mentioned that a half-dozen of the president’s top campaign aides-- including the former campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, national security advisor, and personal lawyer-- have all pleaded guilty to crimes stemming from the probe.

The true scope and implications of Mueller’s work didn’t sink in until over an hour later, when the report itself was posted to the Justice Department’s website. It quickly became clear that the report didn’t line up with the rose-colored glasses with which Barr had presented it over the preceding month.

The contrast was especially stark in the matter of obstruction. The 10 episodes the report details include a Trump lawyer’s attempt attempt to keep national security advisor Michael Flynn from implicating the president, and Trump’s attempts to pressure White House counsel to cover up or stall the investigation of national security advisor Michael Flynn in the opening days of the presidency, and Trump instructing White House counsel Don McGahn to deny that Trump had ever ordered him to fire Mueller. Trump also, the report says, complained that McGahn kept notes of their meetings.

There was, Mueller also concludes, good reason for the president to attempt to obstruct the ongoing FBI probe. “The evidence does suggest indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal or political concerns,” Mueller wrote.

After reading through the numerous episodes, it seems almost nothing short of a miracle that Mueller’s probe appears to have wrapped up on his own terms, though not for lack of effort on Trump’s part to derail it. Instead, Mueller paints a picture of a commander-in-chief who fought back in private and public against the probe, but was ultimately saved from his worst instincts by aides like McGahn, who cooperated extensively with Mueller’s probe and testified for some 30 hours before his team. “The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful,” the report reads, “but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”

Hoyer was whining immediately afterwards, telling CNN's Dana Bash that "based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point. Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement." Even CAP disagrees: their Moscow Project insists that "the Mueller report, like the Watergate roadmap, should be considered an impeachment referral." Pelosi and Hoyer and the timid members of their always timid caucus need to get it through their skulls that "The parallels between the Watergate roadmap and Mueller’s report could not be clearer. Like Jaworski’s report, the story Mueller tells is incredibly damning. His report describes a concerted effort by the Trump campaign to further an unprecedented attack on American democracy, followed by a years-long attempt to cover up their actions." If Pelosi and Hoyer can't do their duty, they should both resign already. 

Individual One by Nancy Ohanian

Primaries For Bad Democrats?

One New Dem leader down, another one to go

I just got back from a post-election rest in Istanbul. On Saturday I was still there and I dashed off a post about how Blue America is going about looking for 2020 congressional recruits. That generated a ton of e-mails like this one [in part] from Melissa in Houston:

My husband and I have faithfully contributed to the Blue America candidates you guys recommend for almost 10 years. That's because we are never shy in pointing out the short-comings of the conservative Democrats who refer to as "the Republican wing of the Democratic Party." We have found your "Primary A Blue Dog" Act Blue sight especially helpful and we and our friends gave money to Marie Newman, Kara Eastman, Alexandria Ocasio and Kevin de Leon there. I hope when you are recruiting for 2020, you will not just be doing the DCCC's job for them but also looking for alternatives to Democrats who act like Republicans.

No need to worry about that! We have already been talking with several candidates interested in taking on some of the worst of the Blue Dogs and New Dems in 2020. You may have seen this tweet I posted Saturday:

It was in response to a couple of Ocasio-Cortez staffers:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was the most spectacularly successful progressive to challenge a bad Dem this cycle. Spectacular for three reasons.

• She is the whole package, one of the sharpest and highest calibre candidates to run anywhere-- someone whose politics are in historical and personal context
• Joe Crowley was a quintessential villain: an ambitious, opportunistic poster child for everything-- no, really, everything-- that is wrong with congressional politics, even beyond being a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street.
• She accomplished all this right under the nose of the mainstream media, which had basically never heard of her until the day after she beat the "next Speaker."

Alex Thompson, writing for Politico took a look at her suggestion that progressive groups put some real energy and resources into cleaning up the Democratic Party brand by encouraging and supporting candidates who primary bad Dems. "Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Saturday threw her weight behind a new national campaign to mount primaries against incumbent Democrats deemed to be ideologically and demographically out of step with their districts," he wrote. The incoming star congresswoman from New York again put the Democratic establishment on notice that she and activist groups on the left aren’t content with a Democratic-controlled House: They are determined to move the party to the left."

On a video conference call with supporters Saturday, she said "All Americans know money in politics is a huge problem, but unfortunately the way that we fix it is by demanding that our incumbents give it up or by running fierce campaigns ourselves. That's really what we need to do to save this country. That's just what it is." She added that people who take money from the special interests their committees oversee, should not be on those committees. "I don't think people who are taking money from oil and gas companies should be drafting climate legislation."

The incoming congresswoman's chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, a co-founder of Justice Democrats, was blunter.

"We need new leaders, period," he said on the call. "We gotta primary folks."

...[I]t is unusual for freshmen Democrats to throw their support behind an organization that is threatening to wage primaries against their new colleagues. And it’s unclear whether it could trigger a backlash from incumbent lawmakers who want to take advantage of their newfound majority to get things done, rather than sweating a primary challenge.

But Ocasio-Cortez has already made clear she’s looking to break the mold. During her first week in Washington, she joined a protest in Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi’s office, supporting calls for a “Green New Deal."

”It wasn’t a very polite move to do," Chakrabarti said.

Ocasio-Cortez said at the sit-in that she was not there to protest Pelosi but to support the activists and their agenda.

“Should Leader Pelosi become the next speaker of the House, we need to tell her that we’ve got her back in showing and pursuing the most progressive energy agenda that this country has ever seen,” she told them. “This is about unity. This is about solidarity.”

When Blue America started looking for someone to primary Crowley, Ocasio had just turned voting age. We never found anyone; she found us after she was already well on the way to winning (with the help of the Justice Democrats).

Taking into account ideology, the districts themselves, corruption, voting records, etc-- though not identity politics-- the House districts Blue America is trying to recruit in for primaries are below, listed alphabetically by state [Note: if we find one or two on this whole list, it will be a miracle.]:

• CA-07- Ami Bera (New Dem) D+3
• CA-16- Jim Costa (Blue Dog) D+9
• CA-29- Tony Cardenas (New Dem) D+29
• CA-31- Pete Aguilar (New Dem) D+8
• CA-46- Lou Correa (Blue Dog) D+15
• CA-52- Scott Peters (New Dem) D+6
• CT-04- Jim Himes (New Dem) D+7
• FL-23- Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem) D+11
• IL-03- Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog) D+6
• IL-10- Brad Schneider (New Dem) D+10
• MD-05- Steny Hoyer D+16
• MA-06 Seth Moulton (New Dem) D+6
• MA-08- Stephen Lynch D+10
• MN-07- Collin Peterson (Blue Dog) R+12
• NJ-01- Donald Norcross (New Dem) D+13
• NJ-05- Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog) R+3
• NY-04- Kathleen Rice (New Dem) D+4
• NY-05- Greg Meeks (New Dem) D+37
• OR-05- Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog) PVI is even
• TN-05- Jim Cooper (Blue Dog) D+7
• TX-15- Vicente González (Blue Dog) D+7
• TX-28- Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog) D+9
• TX-34- Filemon Vela (Blue Dog) D+10

There are no newly elected freshmen on the list, even though some really terrible ones are about to take office. Let's give them a chance before we go after them.

By the way, when I tweeted the original off-the-top-of-my-head list up top, one of the biggest responses was "What about Hoyer?" He's Crowley times 10 but we're always looking for someone willing. I spoke with someone (while I was still in Istanbul) who said "maybe... but not now." Reporting for Common Dreams on Friday, Julia Conley wrote that "While progressives have been focused this week on pressuring House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to embrace bold initiatives, an interview with Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) served as a reminder that the second-ranking Democrat's vision for the party is sorely lacking, as it heads into a new term with control of the House."

On NPR's Morning Edition early Friday, Steve Inskeep asked Hoyer about Medicare for All, which 26 newly-elected Democrats support. Outspoken support for the plan helped progressive challengers including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib win their elections, while 84 percent of Democratic voters-- and 70 percent of Americans overall-- now back the proposal.

The skyrocketing support for Medicare for All, however, appears to have gone unnoticed by Hoyer, who replied with familiar promises of "affordable, quality healthcare" but gave no sign of backing the proposal which even a Koch Brothers-backed study estimates would save Americans $2 trillion in overall healthcare costs.

...Hoyer's interview served as a reminder that the congressman, who has served since 1981, poses as much if not more of a threat to the passage of progressive policies as Pelosi. As Jonathan Tasini, host of Working Life podcast, noted on Twitter, Hoyer has threatened other broadly popular social programs as one of the Democratic Party's most powerful members.

One fairly senior Democrat in Congress-- a Pelosi supporter-- told me he would never vote for Hoyer to lead the party. "That would be a disaster," he told me last night. "Every single bill would go through K Street. It would be like John Boehner all over again."

Meanwhile... an oldie but goodie-- as true today as it ever was-- if not more so: