The Complete Washingtonization Of Politics

This election cycle should serve as a case study in how not to run the DCCC. We've been referring to it as The Steve Israel Effect but, even if Israel is the worst practitioner ever, the DCCC's inability to do its job predated Israel for as long as anyone alive can remember. This goes beyond spending $4,000,000 in a blue-leaning New York City district for a recruit so unattractive that he could lose in a landslide to a Mafia thug with 20 criminal indictments. The story, or a version of it, can be told in any district in the country that Steve Israel stuck his nose into.

As an example, let's look at Friday morning's memo from California Democratic Party vice chair (for Southern California) Eric Bauman, entitled "New Data Indicates Turnout In The Inland Empire Is Dismal This Year." It would never occur to Bauman-- like Israel (in so many ways)-- that dismal candidates make for dismal turnout-- and dismal years. Bauman and Israel pushed Pete Aguilar, a failed bank lobbyist and crony of Jerry Lewis' old Redlands machine pretending to be a Democrat, for a second cycle in a row, helping him to a primary win against a candidate, Eloise Reyes, who would now be wiping the floor with Republican nonentity-- and likely congressman-- Paul Chabot. Instead the DCCC and their House Majority PAC have squandered $1,447,118 on a D+5 solid blue district where the NRCC didn't spend a nickel (although the NRA did spend $4,530).

Vice President Joe Biden is visiting the Indland Empire on Saturday, in an effort to prop up the campaign of Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands), who is running in the open 31st Congressional District against Paul Chabot (R-Rancho Cucamonga), Sources tell InlandPolitics the Aguilar camp is feeling pretty stressed these days, and rightfully so.

Aguilar could easily lose again.

Republicans don't win in D+3 districts, not ever. D+5? Only when someone like Steve Israel is running the DCCC and can get away with recruiting something like Pete Aguilar as the Beltway's favorite candidate. This week, coincidentally, a friend of mine, Moe, dug up a Washington Post OpEd from a reform-minded Democratic congressional candidate, Advise and Resent: Mr. Smith Went to Washington-- and Fled the PACs, which was published on August 25, 1991. It's worth reading and relating to the situation DCCC chairs like Rahm Emanuel and Steve Israel have reinforced and are still reinforcing on House Democrats and candidates who would like to run for Congress.

Even in a quiet year, many believe, we Iowans are being inundated by presidential contenders. Our first-in-the-nation caucus state is seen as a model of democracy. Perhaps it is, yet there is a terrible feeling here that it just doesn't matter anymore. Those who once took pride in raising issues at their neighborhood caucuses, knowing they had a chance of affecting the national agenda, are feeling left out.

This has happened because people believe they're trying to work within an American campaign system that's gone haywire. I'm no political evangelist, but I've made it my business to tell my fellow Iowans just what's happened. More specifically, I tell them about my experience last year as a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives.

They've found my experience appalling-- exemplifying what many Iowans believe has gone wrong: the dramatic shift from a participatory democracy to a highly centralized and manipulative system. At the risk of sounding naive, I'll confess that I was struck by this realization when I made my quest for the Democratic nomination in Iowa's second congressional district-- a seat vacated by Rep. Tom Tauke, who unsuccessfully challenged Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin.

My instruction was served up by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the group whose purpose it is to maintain a Democratic majority in the House. On March 1 last year, the DCCC put on a workshop for challengers at its Washington headquarters, a couple of blocks from the Capitol. The Republicans were doing the same thing at a different time and place.

I attended the workshop with 70 Democratic candidates from all over the country. We hoped that those in Washington, and particularly in my party, had been awakened to the compelling need for campaign reform. After all, one would have expected scandals like the "Keating Five" situation to have brought on a rush to find a better way. I looked forward to returning to Cedar Rapids filled with ideas, ideals, issues and inspiration.

It didn't happen that way. Instead, we were lectured by members of Congress, PAC representatives, pollsters, consultants and media specialists who told us how the "game" is played. As our tape recorders took down their words of wisdom, we heard political "axioms" like the following:

"Marty Stone, staff member of the DCCC: "Money drives this town."

"Tom King, principal of Fenn and King consultants: "You have to sell yourself in Washington first" (pointing out the primacy of Washington professionals over the people you intend to represent). "Negative politics in a primary campaign produces damaged goods," he added, "but you've got to do what you've got to do."

"Frank Greer of Greer, Margolis, Mitchell: "The game of raising PAC money here in Washington will make the difference. Understand how the game is played. It's crucial to your being one of the few that will win." He continued: "It doesn't matter whether negative campaigning is good or bad; it's a reality."

There was more advice at the workshop: Rep. Peter Hoagland, a Nebraska Democrat, assured us that "Raising campaign money from Washington PACs is much easier than from individuals because it's a business relationship."

I wondered just what kind of business relationship he had in mind. Having been in business for 25 years, I believed such a relationship to be an exchange of money or some other consideration for products or services of value. Marty Stone clarified this concept for us: "These people are paid to give you money," he said, "You have to do certain things, but they want to give you money."

George Gould of the letter-carriers union indirectly explained why so little PAC money goes to challengers-- and how PAC giving has less to do with ideology than with access to power: "I don't give my people's money to those I think are going to lose, so you have to convince me you're going to win."

He didn't mince words about the implied agreement between the PAC and the recipient of the PAC's largesse. Nor did he flinch when he said, "When you take PAC money, you are saying you're their friend."

As a candidate, I refused PAC money-- one of two House candidates in the nation to do so. In part, this was a reflection of the caucus-generated platform of Iowa Democrats-- one that called for an end to the influence of PACs and a limit to the obscene levels of campaign spending. In addition, I had been working for campaign reform since 1980 in the belief that the best way to return the agenda of representative democracy to its citizens is to assure a government beholden only to them and not to Washington-based, special-interest pressure groups.

In light of that, you can imagine my reaction to being lectured at the workshop by Hoagland, who said, "Some of you may be under pressure to repudiate PACs. I strongly suggest you not take the hook. Restrain yourself, don't let zeal for reform influence you. Process challenges just don't work."

There were many candidates present who, like myself, were fighting personal financial odds to take a year or more from their jobs to campaign for Congress. Nevertheless, we were told by Hoagland-- who, incidentally, spent $ 180,000 of his own money on his campaign-- that the "ultimate test of your commitment is how much of your own money you are willing to put into your own campaign. If you aren't willing to use your own money, you ought to think about [doing] something else."

He further urged us to adopt this approach because "It will be a permanent career change, you'll be here as long as you want." He was apparently underscoring a system of campaign funding that has become an overwhelmingly effective incumbent-protection tool. He was also, in my view, advocating the principle that personal wealth is an appropriate qualification for election to office.

The complete Washingtonization of politics had become abundantly clear. It was all right there. Everything you could ever want for a successful election was either right in the room or within walking distance. The second day of the workshop began with a "mating dance" brunch, limited to candidates and PACs. Candidates wore blue name tags and PACs wore red. The occasion was opened by Arkansas Rep. Beryl Anthony, then head of the DCCC, who defined PACs as an acronym for "People Are Concerned." He said that candidates facing those who criticize PACs must "take that issue straight to 'em because PACs represent thousands of little people."

I saw the Phillips Petroleum PAC representative smile with approval. I wondered if he was representative of the "little people" to whom Anthony referred. The congressman went on to tell the PAC people they'd be able to pick winners and find matches in the room that will "make your board of directors proud of you."

Candidates were coached to hire Washington consultants and pollsters with the money they raised from Washington PACs. Hoagland told us we "must hire world-class people and not local [back home] people. That's why you have to raise a lot of money." The letter-carriers' Gould said, "You can't hire local people-- forget it!"

Talk about vertical integration of the campaign industry! Here was a congressman telling us how to get the money and a PAC director giving the specifics, while on the same panel were the consultants, pollsters and media gurus who were ready to spend every dime of it for us. Left out of the equation were the people I sought to represent.

Gould went on to warn candidates of the folly of involving volunteers from home districts, saying we may need them near election day to "walk the streets." Said Gould, "In the first phases they'll be no help. They can't do polling, radio, direct mail or TV." At the moment he spoke, my campaign had scores of volunteers who still believed in a government "of the people," phoning neighbors to talk about the campaign and issues that concerned them. Other volunteers were stuffing and stamping envelopes for a "direct mail" response to those concerns.

I suppose you could say that my reaction was pretty emotional. I stood and implored the candidates and panelists, saying that much of what we'd heard is much of what is wrong with the process of politics, campaigns and government today. I told the gathering that it ought to be the Democrats who lead the effort to end the kind of politics we had been coached that day to execute.

There was an uncomfortable moment of silence after my comments. It was broken when PAC director Gould said, "Well, I guess we don't have to worry about contributing to that campaign!" There was polite laughter and the workshop proceeded.

Later, though, many of the candidates approached me individually to second my chagrin about a system out of control. At one point, there were five of us in the restroom during a break, railing against the seaminess and proposing how we might best change the system. However, most of them already had committed to raising as much PAC money as they could, so they didn't want to express their concern in the presence of PACs and the DCCC. But, before the workshop was over, more than half of the candidates present, one at a time, whispered their affirmation of my remarks and their deep disappointment in the position of those representing our party.

One lasting impression came during a brief discussion I had with a would-be candidate who decided, during those two days, not to run. "This has got to change," he confided. He pointed out the difficulty of bringing such activity to an end. A psychologist by profession, he concluded that the behavior we witnessed was addictive in nature and that he had often seen similar symptoms in his practice. We mused that the habit-forming "politically addictive cocaine-- PAC" fueled all of what we saw here. It is an addiction, he said, that has to be "kicked."

In looking back, I realize how serious Frank Greer was when he said, "The campaigns that get the help are the ones that listen to the DCCC when they say that you have to go after a specific PAC and the like. The candidates that listen will get the help in the last few months of the campaign."

Our campaign was cut from the DCCC mailing list soon after the workshop. The issue papers, congressional calendars, updates on important legislation and all the rest were sent only to my primary opponent, Eric Tabor, who was making his third run for the House. He had been the third highest PAC-funded challenger in the nation during the prior election. On election night, when I called my opponent's office to concede, the person who answered his phone was a paid staff member of the DCCC. In November, Tabor was defeated by Republican Jim Nussel.

Now, the Senate has taken some steps toward campaign reform, and the measure it passed in the spring is before the House. I would like to show members of Congress the petition I have. It was signed by the 13 members of the Daughters of the American Revolution who met on a Tuesday noon in the library in Marion, Iowa. The same response came from the 41 members of the Clinton Kiwanis Club; 27 members at the meeting of UAW Local 1024; the executive committee of the Linn County Farm Bureau; the Lions Club of Lansing; Rotarians in Manchester; a Guttenburg High School government class; a local chapter of the American Business Women's Association; Dubuque Optimists; Teamsters retirees; the Cedar Rapids NAACP; and over 50 other diverse eastern Iowa service clubs, civic groups and the like.

The citizens at these gatherings, including Republicans, Democrats and independents, signed a petition that is a call to action to end the stranglehold that PACs have on democracy, return the agenda of government to its citizens and stop the "arms race" of campaign spending.

You have to wonder if it is possible for House members to hear the voices like those in eastern Iowa and join with the Senate to begin the return to a government of, by and for the people. Or will they adhere to a government of the PACs, by the consultants and for the special interests?

Steve Sovern, formerly a sign manufacturer, is now a law student at the University of Iowa.

What Did Pelosi See In Steve Israel? The DCCC Chairman Shows What He's Worth

In the final week of the midterm election cycle, House Republicans are on the offensive and an abysmally-led DCCC is retreating almost everywhere. Boehner is on the attack against Democratic incumbents while the DCCC-- which bragged all cycle about they have out raised the Republicans-- now says it doesn't have the resources to spend on its recruits and has abandoned almost all of them to their fates and the hands of surging Republicans.

The DCCC has been reduced to spending millions in districts that were "in the bag," like NY-11, where Michael Grimm was indicted on 20 criminal counts but will probably beat Israel's pathetic recruit, Domenic Recchia, or CA-31, where another execrable DCCC recruit, worthless bank lobbyist Pete Aguilar is making history by losing an overwhelmingly blue (D+5) district, despite out raising his GOP opponent $1,957,871 to $415,375. The GOP hasn't spent a nickel on behalf of Paul Chabot and the DCCC and their House Majority PAC have spent $1,297,759. Aguilar was also bolstered by the corrupt, right-wing Credit Union National Association PAC which took time out from their efforts on behalf of reactionaries Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Steve Southerland (R-FL) and Tony Strickland (R-CA) to pump $346,841 into Aguilar's campaign. All that said, an internal Aguilar poll shows him down 2-- and down 9 among high-propensity voters. As the DCCC should have learned in 2012, Aguilar's sleazy corrupt demeanor may make him fit in amazingly well among Beltway New Dems and the Steve Israel circle but ordinary working families in the Inland Empire want nothing to do with him. Had Steve Israel not interfered in the primary, Eloise Reyes would be up by double digits going into next week's vote.

Another Israel recruitment disaster has come home to roost in NY-19, a blue (D+1) district in Upstate New York, where Obama beat both McCain and Romney. The DCCC recruited a self-funding multimillionaire, turned him into a mystery-meat nothing and who now looks like he might not even get 40% of the vote. Last night the Siena Poll showed unimpressive GOP incumbent Chris Gibson leading Sean Eldridge by 23 points. This is a blue district... in New York. If Steve Israel, the most incompetent DCCC chairman since 1866, doesn't even know how to win those, why does anyone think he can win anything anywhere? Eldridge has outspent Gibson $4,659,027 to $1,798,884-- most of which, $2,840,000, came from his own personal bank account.

A week before Election Day, Republican Representative Chris Gibson continues to hold a commanding lead over Democrat Sean Eldridge. Gibson holds a 58-35 percent lead, virtually unchanged from his 57-33 percent lead seven weeks ago, according to a new Time Warner Cable News/Siena College poll of likely 19th C.D. voters released today.  By a 60-25 percent margin, voters have a favorable view of Gibson, whereas Eldridge divides voters, with 33 percent viewing him favorably and 35 percent unfavorably.

“Gibson heads into the final week of the campaign largely unscathed and with a commanding 23-point lead over Eldridge,” said Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg. “Over the last seven weeks, the Eldridge campaign has gained little or no traction with practically any constituency.

“Gibson has overwhelming support from 86 percent of Republicans, strong support from 60 percent of independents, and even has the support of more than one-quarter of Democrats, all virtually the same as the previous Time Warner Cable News/Siena poll,” Greenberg said. “He maintains a 13-point lead in the Ulster/Dutchess portion of the district and better than two-to-one leads in the other regions. He has a dominating 42-pont lead with men and leads among women by nine points. He leads by more than 20 points with voters 55 and older and has an even larger lead with voters younger than 55,” Greenberg said.

And the only really good news coming back from the pollsters-- from MI-06, the Paul Clements race against Fred Upton-- is a race Steve Israel not only refused to let the DCCC get involved with but one in which he worked actively against the Democrat to help the Republican! Despite Israel's treachery and despite him having wasted millions of dollars on races in Michigan he's now abandoned as hopeless, the MI-06 race is now within the margin of error. An entirely grassroots effort, it could well be the only glimmer of hope for House Democrats next Tuesday!

The race in Michigan Congressional District 6 has narrowed significantly in recent weeks, as voters have learned more about the negative aspects of Fred Upton’s tenure in Congress, and have been introduced to a viable alternative in Democrat Paul Clements. Additionally, political gaffes by Upton have brought scrutiny to this long-term incumbent who has never faced a credible challenger in a district that Barack Obama won in 2008 and trailed Mitt Romney by only 1.4 percentage points in 2012. Paul Clements has momentum in the closing days of the campaign, in what has turned out to be the most competitive congressional race in Michigan, for a seat that many thought was safe for Republicans.

Paul Clements has momentum on his side, and a top-ticket Democrat leading the way. The race for Congress has narrowed significantly since our last survey only three weeks ago (43% Clements – 47% Upton – 10% undecided). At the top of the ticket, Democrat Gary Peters has a strong lead in the U.S. Senate race in this district (48% Peters – 39% Terri Lynn Land – 12% undecided)... Clements’ path to victory comes by converting Democrats and Independents who are already supporting Democrat Gary Peters in the U.S. Senate race to his side.

...With persistent outside pressure focused on how Fred Upton has changed in the 27 years he has spent in Washington, it is possible for Paul Clements to defeat a long-time Republican incumbent. It is the job of the Clements campaign to finish with powerful positive communications in the closing week of the race, to continue to introduce Clements to Democrats and Independents who are inclined to split their ticket, but have growing reservations about supporting Fred Upton. With a strong fundraising week to finish the campaign, we can make this the “race to watch” in Michigan next Tuesday.

As recently as last week, Israel was working the phones, demanding Democratic groups not help Clements beat Upton. If Clements wins next week, it will be a resounding victory for the grassroots over the corrupt, transpartisan Beltway Establishment of which both Upton and Israel are so emblematic.

Tuesday Alex Isenstadt wrote that House Democrats are fretting over the prospect of debilitating losses Tuesday. They should have fretted when Pelosi reappointed Israel after his disastrous 2012 cycle. Israel is trying too blame progressive donors and President Obama's unpopularity to take the spotlight away from his own corruption, his deals with the GOP leadership, and, most of all, his breathtaking incompetence.

Looking to contain the damage, Democrats are pumping money into liberal congressional districts that were long thought to be safely in their column. Over the last several days, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has directed resources to maintain seats in Hawaii and Nevada, both of which broke sharply for the president in 2012-- an indication of just how much the terrain has shifted against the party over the past two years.

Other unexpected races are suddenly in play. Some Democrats, for example, have begun to worry about the prospects of California Rep. Lois Capps, an eight-term congresswoman who is typically a lock for reelection but who now finds herself in a competitive race against Republican Chris Mitchum, a perennial candidate and the son of the late actor Robert Mitchum. In a sign of how seriously national Democrats are taking the threat, the DCCC is making a last-minute purchase of $99,000 worth of radio advertising in the Santa Barbara area to boost Capps, according to a committee aide.

...Capps isn’t the only incumbent Democratic officials are scrambling at the last minute to defend. DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) recently coordinated a fundraising event for Rep. Dave Loebsack, a fourth-term Iowa incumbent who has recently come under barrage from GOP groups, and reached out to donors on his behalf.

On Tuesday afternoon, Israel and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will hold a hastily-planned conference call for members to provide them with an update on the political terrain and to press them to contribute to the party’s coffers.

...In many instances, Republicans are spending money to put races in play that had long been considered safe for Democrats. American Action Network, a national group with ties to House Speaker John Boehner, has begun airing TV commercials in blue districts in Hawaii and eastern Iowa.

The maneuvering has prompted Democratic groups to yank money from districts they’re trying to seize from Republicans in order to protect seats they already control. Over the past several weeks, the DCCC has pulled funds from top recruits in Colorado and Virginia and begun running TV ads in two eastern Iowa districts, both of which Obama won in 2012.

The Wall Street Journal had a similar report yesterday-- Republicans advancing, Israel leading Democrats into retreat after retreat. "The last-minute maneuvering has the potential, if races break their way, to bring Republicans closer to the 12-seat gain needed to match the party’s post-World War II record of holding 246 House seats. Democrats, aware of the headwind against them, have withdrawn money recently from some GOP-held districts and redirected it largely to endangered incumbents in an effort to limit GOP gains."

The Republican entrance into additional districts-- in Iowa, Nevada and elsewhere-- adds to evidence that voters are making a late turn away from the Democratic party. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Annenberg survey released Sunday found Republicans with a four-point lead among registered voters on which party should control Congress, with 46% favoring the GOP and 42% preferring Democratic control.

Had Pelosi chosen a more competent, less corrupt DCCC chair after Israel wrecked the Democrats' hopes to win back the House in 2012, would the situation be different today? Undoubtably... and we'll be exploring the specifics of that, race by race, over the next two weeks.

If You Want Change... You Gotta Back It Up

It's just two and a half weeks 'til election day.If someone feeds you a line about the Democrats taking back the House, you're talking with a dishonest huckster or someone steeped in ignorance. The House Democrats' sealed their fate when-- in the light of their 2012 disaster-- they allowed Pelosi to reappoint Steve Israel to chair the DCCC. The districts he chose to target (and not target), his third-rate recruits, his conservative talking points and block-headed strategies were all guaranteed to lose again. The Democrats will not win back the net of 17 seats it would take to win control of the House and replace Boehner with Pelosi. The Democrats will not win a net of even one seat. The Democrats will lose seats. That's what Steve Israel knows how to do-- lose. It's all he's ever done. He is a loser. Losers lose.

Two of his most egregious "errors"-- both by design-- were in MN-02 and MI-06, Democratic-leaning districts with especially vile senior Republican policy makers, respectively House Education and Work Force Committee Chairman John Kline and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton. Israel has been actively protecting both of them. Just yesterday Israel was again on the phone berating a Democratic-oriented PAC about contributing to Paul Clements' race in Michigan. This is a really repulsive character who knows if Clements beats Upton-- while the 4 awful recruits Israel backed (and has now abandoned) lose-- Israel may look bad to his colleagues... to put it mildly.

The best progressives can hope for this cycle is the election of more solid progressives, like Bonnie Watson Coleman in New Jersey, Pat Murphy in Iowa and Ted Lieu in California. Those look like the most likely wins. And there are two more up for grabs in a very major way, one in Michigan and one in Minnesota.

As one Steve Israel candidate after another is left behind as roadkill-- their dreams and hopes shattered-- the strongest campaigns standing are the ones that weren't touched by the plague, The Steve Israel Effect. And the two strongest and most competitive House campaigns right now-- the best places for last minute progressive money-- are MN-02 (Mike Obermueller) and MI-06 (Paul Clements). Both are busy mounting get-out-the-vote field operations. Obermueller's brand new ad (above) went up on TV yesterday. Lawrence Lessig's non-partisan, good government MayDay PAC spent $1.4 million on independent ads against Upton this week alone! These are the races to put smart money. You can find both right here.

Paul Clements needs field volunteers in the Benton Harbor/St. Joseph/Niles area. If you're in western Michigan, please consider giving them a hand right here.

MayDay PAC, Lawrence Lessig's non-partisan, good government, crowd-sourced, peoples' PAC, just released their latest TV spot for South Dakota. I thought you might want to take a look. And if you'd like to contribute to Rick Weiland's get-out-the-vote field operation, you can do that right here.

Red To Blue Has Now Become A Democratic Candidate Death Sentence

We’ve been talking a lot about the very predictable catastrophic impact the Steve Israel Effect has been having on Democratic campaigns from coast to coast. Although a staffer in one of Israel’s victims’ campaigns was willing to tell us that his candidate has basically stopped making donor calls and just chops wood now, cursing Israel with every swing of his ax, most of the candidates and staffers don’t want to go on the record about how they feel about the DCCC wrecking their campaigns at the last minute. Bitterness is rampant and every campaign told me that Israel never called anyone, just pulled the plug and then had a low-level lackey call to tell the campaign that they were finished. Some read it online before they got word of it from the DCCC.

“They recruited us,” one furious campaign manager told me yesterday, “in a district where they’ve had problems finding good candidates. They brought us to Washington and told us not to worry about the money, that they’d take care of it. But as soon as we agreed to run, it was nothing but all about the money.” I asked him if his candidate would run again. He told me the same thing everyone else did— “not if Steve Israel is anywhere near the DCCC.”

Several campaign managers have told me that Israel is trying to buy silence from the candidates who’s campaigns he destroyed by promising them the nomination in 2016, expected to be a better year. Most of them realize he’s in no position to make any such promise.

The latest victim of The Steve Israel Effect is Aimee Belgard in South Jersey (NJ-03), an open R+1 district that Obama won both times. Belgard is running against a corrupt corporate whore, Tom MacArthur. The most recent DCCC poll, by IVR last week, shows Belgard up 43-42%.

Democrat and Burlington County Freeholder Aimee Belgard leads Republican Insurance Executive Tom MacArthur Insurance by 1 point as of the DCCC’s latest poll of likely general election voters in NJ-03. These results come on the heels of a recent Stockton Polling Institute survey which found the race tied within the margin of error, and confirms that the momentum of the open- seat race has shifted in Belgard’s favor.

In the congressional race, Belgard leads MacArthur 43% to 42% overall with 15% of voters still undecided.

Support for Belgard is especially strong with independent voters— a key voting bloc in the likely electorate (8 point lead over MacArthur), and she performs competitively in the Republican-leaning Ocean County portion of the district.

New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional District is a true swing district and one of Democrats’ top pick-up opportunities or the 2014 cycle. President Obama carried this district in both 2008 and 2012, and incumbent Republican Jon Runyan will not seek reelection in 2014.

Not good enough for Israel! The House Majority PAC pulled back yesterday, leaving Belgard in the lurch and probably unable to defend herself in the last weeks of the campaign. The DCCC is still spending on relatively inexpensive cable ads but there is a question of whether or not Belgard will have enough communication on broadcast media as she needs in such a close race.

House Majority PAC moved a massive broadcast television reservation for the week of Oct. 14, pushing it back and splitting it in half over broadcast airwaves for the two final weeks of the midterms, according to the super PAC’s Executive Director Ali Lapp. She told CQ Roll Call it is undetermined if the group will follow through with its Philadelphia ad reservation through Election Day.

The other Red-to-Blue candidates who’s campaigns Israel has torpedoed include Amanda Renteria and Michael Eggman in California, Jim Mowrer in Iowa, Ann Callis in Illinois, Jerry Cannon, Pam Byrnes, Eric Schertzing and Bobbie McKenzie in Michigan, Manan Trivedi and Kevin Strouse in Pennsylvania, John Foust and Suzanne Patrick in Virginia, Sean Eldridge, Aaron Woolf and Martha Robertson in New York, Jennifer Garrison and Michael Wager in Ohio, Rocky Lara in New Mexico, Andrew Romanoff in Colorado, John Lewis in Montana, James Lee Witt and Jackie McPherson in Arkansas, Erin Bilbray in Nevada, Nick Casey in West Virginia, and Elisabeth Jensen in Kentucky.

These are the races Israel is still rolling the dice in:

• AR-02- Patrick Henry Hays- $69,186 last week (of $756,580 spent) R+8
• FL-02- Gwen Graham- $138,515 last week (of $1,593,519) R+6
• IA-03- Staci Appel- $14,172 last week (of $62,430) even PVI
• NY-11- Domenic Recchia- $9,162 last week (of $1,395,668) R+2
• CA-31- Pete Aguilar- $66,967 last week (of $945,454) D+5
• NE-02- Brad Ashford- $206,833 last week (of $608,979) R+4
• ME-02- Emily Cain- $10,420 last week (of $317,215) D+2

Pathetic.

And that’s it. All those tens of millions of dollars they bragged about raising all cycle has gone into their corrupt pockets and into the campaigns of mostly conservative Democrats who have no grassroots support because they vote with the GOP all the time, like worthless Blue Dogs John Barrow ($1,406,732), Collin Peterson ($1,879,662), Ron Barber ($1,612,060), Nick Rahall (3,340,474), Cheri Bustos ($1,282,279) and Pete Gallego ($1,185,973).

Another Corollary Of The Steve Israel Effect: Discouraged Democratic Voters Stay Home

All cycle we’ve been talking about The Steve Israel Effect— even before we named it. The Steve Israel Effect is when his grotesquely corrupt DCCC targets the wrong districts with awful conservative recruits, gets them to alienate grassroots Democrats with mealy-mouthed mystery meat positions by promising huge independent expenditures in their races— and then leaves them high and dry at the end of the campaign by withdrawing all the financial support and transferring it to even worse and more conservative (and corrupt) candidates. One of over a dozen examples in the last few weeks: Steve Israel just withdrew $2.8 million in support for moderate John Foust and gave the money to wretched Nebraska Blue Dog Brad Ashford and the shady little bank lobbyist Pete Aguilar.

One of the corollaries of the Steve Israel Effect is that it depresses Democratic turn-out. Grassroots progressives, who differ markedly and across-the-board from the corrupt Beltway Establishment, are not usually enthused by the horrifyingly low calibre of candidates Israel and other DCCC hucksters recruit. Garbage candidates like Jennifer Garrison— anti-Choice, virulently anti-gay, pro-NRA, pro-fracking… she’d be perfect as a Republican— do not draw informed Democratic voters. Conservative incumbents (Blue Dogs and New Dems)— encouraged all cycle by Israel and Hoyer to vote with the GOP on crucial matters— are now all in trouble and struggling to survive. It’s no wonder why. Conservative voters already have their candidates, i.e., Republicans. When grassroots Dems don’t see a choice, they stay home. And, sure enough, yesterday’s Hill broke the news that Israel and the other lame brains in the DC Democratic Establishment are panicking as they “suddenly” realize that many of their base voters won’t be showing up in 3 weeks.

The Democratic Party's worst fears about the midterm election look to be coming true.

Polling in recent weeks suggests turnout on Election Day could be very low, even by the standards of recent midterms. That’s bad news for Democrats because core groups in the liberal base are more likely to stay home than are people in the demographic segments that lean Republican.

A Gallup poll last week found that voters are less engaged in this year's midterms than they were in 2010 and 2006. Only 33 percent of respondents said they were giving at least “some” thought to the upcoming midterms, compared to 46 percent in 2010 and 42 percent in 2006. Even more troubling for Democrats, Republicans held a 12-point advantage  when those paying “some” attention were broken down by party.

Historically, the core Democratic constituencies of young people, minorities and single women are more likely to skip voting in midterm elections. The current projections suggest that months of effort by the Democratic Party to engage those groups on issues such as the minimum wage and women's pay may have been in vain.

If the numbers hold, it could mean a rout for Democrats similar to the 2010 "shellacking”— President Obama’s description— that swept away their House majority.

"We cannot have 2010 turnout. If we have 2010 turnout among our key constituencies, we're going to have 2010 all over again. It's math," said Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher, who served as a pollster for President Obama's election campaigns.

…Some Democrats think the party hasn't done enough to pep up the groups that form its main pillars of support. Veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told The Hill last week that Hispanic voters would largely be unmotivated to vote in this year's elections due to President Obama's decision to delay an executive action on immigration.

“I think if we'd done something, it would have energized the Latino vote and drawn a clear distinction with the Republicans," Lake said.

Polling has further shown that young people are generally disengaged with this year's elections. A Pew Research poll this month found that only five percent of adults ages 18-29 were following the 2014 midterms very closely.

That could spell disaster for Democrats. National exit polls from the last midterm elections in 2010 indicated that voters aged 18-29 favored Democratic candidates over Republicans by 55 percent to 42 percent. Those figures were roughly reversed among voters aged 65 and older, who voted Republican 59 percent to 38 percent.

…Democrats are continuing to try hard to get their base to turn out. Leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus last month announced a multi-state campaign drive to motivate African American voters to go to the polls. The effort started with voter outreach drives at 3,000 African American churches across the country on September 21.

Way too late. It was all over when Pelosi reappointed Israel to head the DCCC and allowed him to start recruiting one wretched, unsupportable candidate after another. Although he’s trying to pad his “batting average” by including candidates from districts held by Democrats (Kathleen Rice, Aaron Woolf, Pat Murphy, Emily Cain, Seth Moulton), he’s likely to lose almost all his Red-to-Blue recruits, many of whom he’s already pulled the rug out from under. Of the 29 candidates left on his Red-to-Blue list, the only likely wins are 4 of the 5 running for Democratic-held seats (no Woolf) plus Pete Aguilar in an overwhelmingly Democratic district (D+5), plus Andrew Romanoff (CO-06), Staci Appel (IA-03), Gwen Graham (FL-02), and, maybe Domenic Recchia (NY-11), whose opponent has been indicted on 20 felonies. The rest look like they’re all going down, more victims of the Steve Israel Effect.


UPDATE: Latest Victims Of The Steve Israel Effect

Andrew Romanoff was once considered the most likely Democratic challenger to beat a Republican incumbent (extremist Mike Coffman). But Steve Israel has lost faith in him and just pulled a million dollars so he could better finance Blue Dog Brad Ashford in Nebraska and a gaggle of endangered conservative Democratic incumbents who have minimum support at a grassroots level after disappointing voters by sucking up to Wall Street for the last two years.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had reserved $1.4 million for TV spending to boost Romanoff in the final two weeks of his race against Republican Rep. Mike Coffman. But a DCCC aide said Friday that those funds would be distributed to other races.

Romanoff, a former state House speaker and unsuccessful 2010 Senate candidate, was once regarded as one of his party’s top 2014 hopefuls. But, with Republicans benefiting from a favorable national environment and Coffman running an energetic reelection campaign, Romanoff has seen his prospects dim.

Every candidate without exception who has followed Israel’s hollow losing advice has dim prospects now. A far less viable candidate than Romanoff, Israel fave Jennifer Garrison, has also had the legs cut out from under her feeble campaign in eastern/southern Ohio. Asked today by the Herald-Dispatch what steps the federal government should take to reduce the number of Americans living in poverty this was her response. (Keep in mind she makes her living tricking her neighbors into selling fracking rights under their property.) Sghe couldn’t think of any better way to help the unemployed and poverty-stricken than this GOP talking point— probably fed to her by Israel:

“The federal government should promote policies that encourage growth in our economy and create jobs. An example of these policies would be to invest in clean coal technologies and oppose the EPA standards on existing coal fired power plants that will result in a loss of jobs in this region. This can immediately encourage job growth in southeastern Ohio.”

Can Virginia Democrat John Foust Survive The Steve Israel Effect?

If Comstock wins in November, Sean Hannity and Steve Israel deserve the credit

Last week the NRCC put $605,144 into ads against John Foust, the Democrat running in the open northern Virginia seat from which mainstream conservative Frank Wolf is retiring. The Republican candidate to replace Foust is anything but a mainstream anything. It’s notorious right-wing sociopath Barbara Comstock. The $605,144 last week was just a part of the $1,218,367 budget the NRCC has allocated for the race. Steve Israel took one look at the amount and backed out immediately, withdrawing the ads he had scheduled and blaming it on weak conservative New Dem Ami Bera in California (CA-07), who has an uninspiring voting record and needs a big infusion of cash to persuade his constituents he’s worth reelecting (which he isn’t). Meanwhile, despite a poll commissioned last week by the DCCC showing a neck and neck 41-39% race in VA-10, Israel is in full-on abandonment mode nation-wide, taking money from good candidates like Foust to fund really bad ones like Pete Aguilar (CA) and reactionary Blue Dog Brad Ashford (NE).

VA-10— which stretches from McLean, the Dulles Airport corridor and Chantilly in the east out to Manassas, Leesburg, and Winchester in the west— is a swing district. Obama beat McCain by around 9,000 votes (51-48%) and then lost to Romney by around 4,000 votes (50-49%) in 2012. Wolf’s retirement looked like the perfect opportunity to pick up the seat, especially considering the calibre of the fringe nut the GOP nominated.

John Foust seems like an excellent candidate, a proven vote-getter as a Fairfax County Supervisor whose values and vision pretty much mirror the moderate district’s voters— not as liberal as Blue America prefers and not as conservative as Steve Israel prefers— but a moderate in the positive sense of the word. As of the June 30 FEC deadline he had out-raised Comstock $1,480,910 to $1,372,152. He had $1,125,718 cash on hand to her $575,891. The one wrinkle is that the NRCC and its allies started pouring huge amounts of cash into the race. Aside from the NRCC’s $1,218,367, the Chamber of Commerce kicked in $330,414 and other fringe right-wing operations like the NRA put just over another $50,000. The DCCC and it’s House Majority PAC put up $172,452 and big red flashing signs started going off. A late addition to the enfeebled Red-to-Blue program, Foust was being defined by all those negative ads the NRCC was putting on the air, ads that went unanswered by the DCCC, although one of the Beltway professional pundits who is only ever right about anything the day after election day. wrote that “Democrats have zeroed in on a quartet of competitive Republican open seats including… Virginia’s 10th District… where they believe the GOP nominees are either fatally flawed or extremely weak.”

In the last week or so NARAL singled out 10 Men For Choice. Of the 10, only 3 are challengers going up against crazy anti-Choice women— Gary Peters for the Michigan Senate seat (Terri Lynn Land), Bruce Braley for the Iowa Senate seat (Joni Ernst) and Foust. Similarly, Cosmopolitan, which has primarily endorsed progressive women candidates, also singled out Foust for a fulsome endorsement : “The candidates running for a congressional seat in Virginia's 10th district could not be more different: One is pro-choice; the other thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned and supported legislation requiring women seeking abortions— even rape and incest victims— to undergo trans-vaginal ultrasounds. One candidate supports same sex marriage; one voted for a bill that would allow private adoption agencies to refuse same sex couples for religious reasons. In this tight Virginia congressional race, we support John Foust.”

The week before, an editorial in the Washington Post, entitled A sheep in Wolf’s clothing, makes it clear that Comstock is nothing but a doctrinaire ideologue, less interested in solving northern Virginia’s problems than playing up to delusional Confederates who want to fight the Civil War over again.

When the Foust campaign contacted Blue America it was a tough one for us. Comstock is one of the worst and most dangerous Republican extremists on the ballot anywhere. And Foust seemed like a very nice guy and a sincere person who would be solid on most progressive issues. In the end, though, we decided he didn’t really need our help as much as other candidates because he so heavily prioritized by the DCCC and they had reserved almost $3 million in TV and radio time for him. We decided to put our efforts behind more progressive candidates that the DCCC was ignoring, like Mike Obermueller (MN-02), Paul Clements (MI-06), Kelly Westlund (WI-07), Rob Zerban (WI-01), and, most recently, Jason Ritchie (WA-08).

So, with election day less than a month away, we were mortified that Israel decided to pull the plug on Foust, cancelling the crucial TV advertising that surely were part of the Foust path to victory calculus— a shocking $2.8 million worth! What is Nancy Pelosi thinking keeping Steve Israel in place for even one more day. A blindfolded janitor at 430 S. Capitol St. SE would do a more credible job.

Will Steve Israel-Recruit Jerry Cannon Be Brought To Trial For War Crimes After He Loses In November?

Founded in 1961, MIRS— Michigan Informantion and Research Service— isn’t meant to be for everyone. It’s a subscription only service for political insiders and it purports to provide “comprehensive news and analysis of state government delivered in written reports detailing the activities of the House, Senate, Judicial and Executive branches of Michigan state government.” They describe their own customer base as “Fortune 500 companies, lobbyists, government officials, law firms, local governments, universities, organized labor groups, statewide trade organizations and professionals who have to stay on top of changes in laws impacting any given area.”

This week, after learning about how furious— violently furious— conservative Democrat Jerry Cannon is at DCCC Chairman Steve Israel, a headline from MIRS caught my attention: Cannon Linked To Inhuman Treatment In Gitmo.

One of the appealing factors for a Jerry Cannon congressional campaign was his perceived squeaky clean record as a member of the military and the Kalkaska County Sheriff.

He told Politico last year that "I don't have a record that people can attack," which was a big reason national Democrats took such an interest in him.

However, the Democratic nominee in the 1st Congressional District, who is facing U.S. Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Crystal Falls) in one of the state's most competitive congressional races, may not be exactly devoid of controversy.

Cannon's name was wrapped into at least one civil suit regarding inhuman treatment at Guantánamo Bay's Camp Delta when he was the head of the detention detail from July 2003 to August 2004.

According to a Washington Post article from 2004, FBI agents and officials witnessed the use of growling dogs to intimidate detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In another instance from August 2004 at Camp Delta, a detainee is said to have been wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music in an attempt to soften his resistance to interrogation.

The New York Times reported in October 2004 that uncooperative prisoners at Camp Delta were told to "strip to their underwear, having them sit in a chair while shackled hand and foot to a bolt in the floor, and forcing them to endorse strobe lights and screamingly loud rock and rap music played through two close loudspeakers, while the air conditioning was turned up."

Cannon was named as a defendant in four different detainee lawsuits and named specifically in the closing arguments in the case of Mohammad Jawad by Major David J.R. Frakt.

"It is my recommendation that charges be preferred against MG Cannon under the MCMJ for cruelty, maltreatment and abuse, dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful order at the earliest opportunity," Frakt said. "He completely and utterly failed to prevent the flagrant abuse of a detained under his protection. It is high time that someone in a position of authority be held accountable, and not just the guards who were carrying out orders this time."

Jawad ended up staying in Gitmo until 2009 before a district court judge ordered his release back to Afghanistan after being found not guilty of the charges leveled against him.

To show that Cannon was aware of the tactics used at Camp Delta, America Rising referenced a Human Rights First article about how detainees were moved around eight times a day or every three hours with the goal of keeping detainees "off balance."

Apparently, Cannon and military leadership were aware of the "frequent flyer program," designed to deprive inmates of sleep, and no one questioned the program's legality.

During an interview with Roll Call a year ago, Cannon said the Red Cross checked off on its detention operation during their biannual inspections. "It was a great mission," he said. "I don't see that ever being an issue, that someone, if they really understand the entire circumstances, would think that could be a liability."

However, the New York Times reported on Nov. 30, 2004 that the Red Cross found techniques "tantamount to torture" after its June 2004 visit.

The prolonged exposure to the cold and loud music was designed to break the will of the detainees.

"The construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture," read the Red Cross report.

Cannon never had formal charges filed against him for anything he did or didn't do at Camp Delta.

Nate Nesbitt of America Rising said Cannon has told voters he doesn't have a record of note, when his background is one "that needs further examination and scrutiny."

"It's very important Michigan voters are aware of his numerous civil rights violations and questionable history," Nesbitt said.

We looked at what exactly America Rising is last week. The fact that they are a shady right-wing, for-profit Republican Party operation that specializes in political smears— they’re the ones who were caught doctoring Democrats’ wikipedia pages— doesn’t automatically mean everything they say is false. All the information about Cannon is independently verifiable. It doesn’t make Benishek any more appropriate to serve in Congress; it just makes it clear that thoughtful votes in Michigan’s first congressional district have no one to vote for at all. Thanks, Steve Israel and thanks Lon Johnson, Cannon’s drinking buddy and the chairman of the state Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, due south of MI-01, in the southwest corner of the state, the one Michigan House campaign in a competitive district that has not been wrecked by the “Steve Israel Effect” is Paul Clements’ effort in MI-06. That’s because Israel, a crony of toxic GOP incumbent Fred Upton, declared that even though MI-06 is the most winnable red seat in the state, he would not engage there. Instead of panicking, progressive Democrat Paul Clements put together Michigan’s best congressional campaign and has been making steady inroads against Upton. Today the two candidates will have their first debate. And today Lawrence Lessig's non-partisan, good government MayDay PAC did what a competent DCCC would have done— they released an independent expenditure in the form of a TV ad against Fred Upton, the first negative ad against Upton ever. They're spending $1.5 million in MI-06. Steve Israel and his corrupt and incompetent DCCC is spending exactly zero. I hope Pelosi spends some time thinking about that-- and extrapolating it to other districts around the country. Enjoy:



Despite Steve Israel and the DCCC, we can help bring this one home and beat one of the most dangerous and poisonous Republican policy-makers in Congress. Please consider giving what you can to Paul Clements' campaign.

Assigning Fault For Impending Democratic Congressional Losses

Last night we took a look at some of the poor schlubbs Steve Israel had recruited to run for Congress and has now abandoned, tainted by his losing strategies and unable to gain any traction on their own. Michigan is a particularly ugly victim of the “Steve Israel Effect.” The irony there is that the DSCC has run a perfect race in Michigan— so perfect that as the DCCC packs up its tent and heads down to Arkansas or West Virginia or whichever red hellhole Israel has decided to take a last stand in, the Republicans have raised the white flag in the Michigan Senate race. Pelosi should be scratching her head and asking her staff how her fate wound up in the hands of Congress’ most clueless, incompetent and corrupt moron. This kind of coverage has been reserved for the DCCC this cycle:

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has cut the remaining television it had reserved in Michigan amid signs former Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land (R) is having trouble catching Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.).

The NRSC's independent expenditure arm has canceled television reservations for the last two weeks of the campaign, pulling more than $850,000 out of the state, The Hill has confirmed.

And Peters— a Wall Street-oriented New Dem— isn’t any better than the crappy candidates Israel dredged up from the bottom of various barrels (except maybe Jerry Cannon, the guy who ran the Guantánamo gulag while people were being rendered and tortured. What a great candidate to recruit… what could possibly go wrong?) The difference between Gary Peters’ winning race in Michigan and all the written-off blue-leaning House districts in the state is, obviously, Steve Israel and his useless DCCC.

A couple of days ago Alexander Bolton, at The Hill opened the conversation about who will have lost the senate for the Democrats if they lose. Maybe a little premature? It could have just as well been called which genius is responsible for the Senate Democrats holding on? Bolton doesn’t talk about Steve Israel’s role in the sure catastrophe shaping up for House Dems. No one Inside the Beltway dares go there… yet. But Bolton wrote that “Democrats are starting to play the blame game as they face the possibility of losing the Senate in November… If Democrats keep control of the Senate, Reid will likely be given much of the credit. But if they fail, the blame could fall on his shoulders.” And, although he points out several missteps. the first race he points to is the Harry Reid-manufactured disaster in South Dakota:

The behind-the-scenes tension broke into the open last week when former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) questioned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) decision not to endorse Democrat Rick Weiland in South Dakota’s Senate race.

The Hill’s coverage— by Bob Cusack and Jessica Taylor— includes blatant misinformation that still hasn’t been corrected. “In an email on Monday, a DSCC official stated in an email, ‘The DSCC has endorsed Rick. Rick attended the DSCC’s big retreat on Martha’s Vineyard earlier this year. The DSCC has also conducted polling on Rick’s behalf.’”

The DSCC has not endorsed Rick. This screen shot of the DSCC website I made a few hours ago doesn’t read like an endorsement to me:

As for the infamous retreat at Martha’s Vineyard, Rick was there— uninvited by the DSCC but encouraged by a dozen Democratic senators to just show up. He practically had to hop a fence to get in! The polling the DSCC has done in South Dakota was hardly conducted “on Rick’s behalf.” It has been used by Harry Reid, Guy Cecil and the ridiculous Michael Bennet as justifications for writing off South Dakota and Rick’s vibrant grassroots campaign. Last week embattled Democratic Senator Mark Pryor told a public gathering that “the best thing that could happen” would be for McConnell to lose his reelection bid and for Reid to step down and be replaced as Democratic Leader by Chuck Schumer.




UPDATE: Reid Couldn’t Take Anymore Heat

The DSCC finally relented— halfway— and started pouring negative ads into South Dakota to smear the very smear-worthy Mike Rounds. The DSCC doesn’t care who beats him. They’d be as happy with conservative Republican Larry Pressler as they’d be with progressive Democrat Scott Weiland. I’ve noticed many of the least trustworthy and least knowledgeable voice among superficial Democrats already whining that Weiland should step out of the race. This is really sick— and really typical of a moribund party and moribund activists. The DSCC says they’re throwing in a million bucks and say they’re doing it because the polling is so close. They're not doing any positive ads for Weiland, just negative stuff against Rounds. Lawrence Lessig's non-partisan, good government PAC, MayDay, is also spending a million dollars in South Dakota and it seems to all be going into positive ads for Weiland.