Congressional Primary One Week From Today: NC-03

As I mentioned in the post Sunday about the special election in PA-12, Democrats don't win in R+17 districts-- not ever. How about a district where the PVI is R+12? That's very unlikely, but not quite as impossible. The Democrats serving in Congress today in the reddest districts are:

Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT) R+13
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) R+12, which he's held since 1990 when it was not so prohibitively red
Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC) R+10 seat
Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK) R+10

After that the big anti-Republican/anti-Trump wave swept some Dems into extremely tough districts with PVIs of R+5, 6 and 7... all considered almost impossible to win. There are two more congressional special elections coming up after the PA-12 seat on May 21... both in North Carolina, the 9th and the 3rd districts. The 9th is doable and the Democrat is has an even chance to win that R+8 seat! The other one, NC-03, that's the R+12 district I was referring to. Almost impossible, but not absolutely impossible. So far the DCCC is pretty much ignoring the district, just as they are PA-12.

Walter Jones, a former Democrat and the most independent-minded Republican in Congress, died in February, meaning the seat is open. Obama lost the district both times he ran and Trump crushed Hillary there: 60.5% to 36.9%. Last cycle, the Democrats didn't run a candidate against Jones. There 2016 candidate, Ernest Reeves, took 32.6% of the vote to Jones' 67.4%. Jones never had less than 60% in any of his 11 re-election races.

The district includes all or parts of 17 counties from the Virginia border and the Outer Banks to the Marine Corps Camp Lejeune and along the coast past Beaufort, New Bern and Jacksonville and inland to the suburbs around Greenville. The district is mostly rural and the biggest city is Jacksonville, with a population of about 72,000. Yesterday a Washington Post OpEd by Max Boot, excoriating the GOP-- My Former Party's Reaction To The Mueller Report Fills Me With Disgust-- isn't likely to make it into the information stream of many-- if any-- voters in NC-03. "Having declared the Republican Party to be morally bankrupt last month-- after 90 percent of GOP lawmakers voted to approve President Trump’s unconstitutional state of emergency-- I am not remotely surprised by the party’s dishonorable and dishonest reaction to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report," he wrote. "But I am nevertheless dismayed and disgusted that a once-great party-- to which I belonged for most of my life-- could become a handmaiden to foreign attacks on the United States and blatant lawbreaking by the president." No one in Currituck, Onslow, Carteret, Terrell, Craven, Pamlico or any of the other are going to see what Boot had to say. I have a feeling not many cable systems in the district carry MSNBC either; just a feeling.

Crazy far right lunatic, Rep Michael Speciale, is obsessed with males' genitals

The primary is a week from today. As best as I can tell there are 26 candidates-- 17 Republicans, 6 Democrats and a couple of Libertarians and a guy from the Constitution Party. The general election is scheduled for September 10. Of the 17 Republicans, 16 of them made it to a forum a week ago at Currituck County Middle School in Barco. Of the 16, they all pretty much agreed on everything, including a strong embrace of Trump-style xenophobia. They all want to waste tax payer money on a feudal wall, calling immigration a "crisis" or "national emergency." Right-wing state Rep. Greg Murphy, for example, said he has "empathy" for immigrants fleeing violence in their home countries, but claimed the border is "overrun" and that it's not America's "job to be the breadbasket for everyone." His somewhat less empathic colleague, state Rep. Michael Speciale claimed illegal immigrants are bringing drugs, crime, and disease, exactly what xenophobes and racists like Speciale said about the Germans, Irish, Italians, Poles, Greeks, Jews, Chinese, Japanese and everyone else who has come to this country-- and made it great-- in the last 2 centuries. One of the little Nazis, Celeste Cairns-- whose cousin is fascist congressman Lance Gooden from Texas-- called for ending the constitutional right of birthright citizenship, of course. Sorry... off topic (kind of). These are the Republican candidates:

• State Rep Greg Murphy, a penis doctor and the biggest money raiser in the field
• State Rep Phil Shepard, a Baptist pastor.
• State Rep Michael Speciale, very extreme and very obsessed with homosexuality
• Lenoir County commissioner Eric Rouse, a proud gun nut/wing nut
• Currituck County commissioner Mike Payment
• Currituck County commissioner Paul Beaumont
• Celeste Cairns, the Nazi with the Nazi cousin, a CPA who has been endorsed by Club for Growth
• Francis De Luca, former president of the Civitas Institute
• Jeff Moore, a former McCrory staffer, a current right-wing blogger and a religious nut
• Michele Nix, a former vice-chair of the North Carolina GOP and a 100% Trump stooge
• Joan Perry, an anti-Choice fanatic and crackpot
• Phil Law, a frequent candidate, hoping to get lucky this time
• Kevin Baiko, a random person
• Graham Boyd, a random person
• Gary Ceres, a random person
• Chimer Davis Clark Jr., a random person
• Don Cox, a random person

And these are the 6 Democrats participating in their party's primary"

• Richard "Otter" Bew, Recently retired Marine colonel
• Gregory Humphrey, a random person
• Isaiah "Ike" Johnson, retired marine
• Dana Outlaw, Mayor of New Bern
• Ernest Reeves, frequent candidate
• Allen Thomas, former mayor of Greenville


Unquestionably, the dumbest person in the race-- so a likely frontrunner-- is the former party hack, Michele Nix. She says she'll stand up to socialism and she's pretending she's running against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This is her ad:



If the world turns upside down, I suppose Bew could beat one of the more extreme Republicans, maybe Rouse or Nix. Thomas and Bew are outraising the other Democrats-- 255,390.10 for Thomas and $124,513.34 for Bew as of the most recent FEC April 10. On the Republican side, Greg Murphy has raised $317,994.00, Joan Perry has raised $154,345.00, Rouse raised $147,640.00, De Luca $119,410.89, Moore $104,781.40, Cairns $75,099.50, while Nix surprised everyone by only bringing in $48,203.50.

Chris Hardee, the Democratic Party district chairman says "it's a moderate district where citizens want someone who'll fight for the region's military bases and agricultural economy. The special election raises the wild-card possibility that with the right general-election matchup or narrative a Democrat could pull an upset. This is our best chance-- and maybe our only chance for a while, if we don't win. If they did, it would be historical.

How would you like this loud-mouthed piece of crap as a congressman-- let alone a neighbor?

Walter Jones, RIP

Walter Jones was one of the few Republican members of Congress who I was able to get to talk with me for DWT. And he was always a serious and forthright guy. I liked him and was sorry to hear he had passed away today, on his 76th birthday. He hadn't been back to Congress since late last year.

Like his father, he began his political career as a conservative Democrat. His father, also Walter Jones, served in Congress. Walter Jr, was elected to the North Carolina state House in 1982 and represented Pitt County until 1992 when he ran, unsuccessfully , to his retiring father's congressional seat. He lost the Democratic primary. Walter Jr switched parties and in 1994 was elected to a neighboring seat as a Republican, becoming the first Republican to represent an eastern North Carolina congressional seat since Reconstruction.

Now his seat is firmly Republican-- R+12-- and McCain won with 56.8%, Romney with 58.5% and Trump with 60.5%. Last year he was reelected with opposition, although two right-wing extremists challenged him in the primary-- as the far right had been doing for some time, unhappy with his centrist positions, particularly in advocating the end of the Iraq war.

According to ProgressivePunch, his lifetime crucial vote score was the 5th most progressive of any Republicanand he often had better scores than right-wing Blue Dog Democrats like Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Henry Cuellar (TX), Jim Costa (CA) and Collin Peterson (MN).

Boehner removed him from his place on the House Financial Services Committee for not being lockstep with the party enough. (For example, he was one of the few Republicans who supported a minimum wage-- and of raising it.) After he came out against the Iraq war, Boehner semi-secretly backed a primary opponent but Jones won anyway.

“I did not do what I should have done to read and find out whether Bush was telling us the truth about Saddam (Hussein) being responsible for 9/11 and having weapons of mass destruction,” Jones said in a 2015 radio interview. “Because I did not do my job then, I helped kill 4,000 Americans, and I will go to my grave regretting that.”

Jones signed more than 11,000 letters to families of dead troops since 2003, an act he told The Associated Press was “penance” for his vote. Jones began sending the letters after attending the 2003 funeral of Marine Sgt. Michael Bitz.

“I want them to know that my heart aches as their heart aches,” he told the AP.


...Jones tried, without success, to get the House to debate a new war authorization as the U.S. military presence spread around the Middle East in its fight against terrorism, arguing that the 2001 authorization approved after the attacks of Sept. 11 had been used “far too long,” according to one letter, as justification.


...Jones served as co-chair of the Campaign Finance Reform Caucus, pushing for reforms to lessen the impact and role of large campaign contributions. He called for the repeal of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which opened the door for super PACs, and pushed for public financing of elections. Jones railed against the corrosive influence of money in politics for much of his career.

“The money up here is power,” Jones said in a 2005 interview with McClatchy. “Power is money. It’s true for both sides. That’s what creates problems.”

Jones also worried deeply about the nation’s growing debt, angering some Republicans by voting against President Donald Trump’s signature tax-cut bill because of its impact on the debt. He refused to vote for bills that increased the national debt.

“I can’t do it,” he told the News & Observer. “My consistency is the fact that of my great concern that the debt one day of this nation will strangle the economy... We can’t keep doing these things we can’t pay for.”

UPDATE: Ted Lieu

"Walter Jones was a great man and a courageous, principled public servant. I was honored to have had the opportunity to work with Walter on a number of issues, including reforming our campaign finance system; preventing the President from launching a nuclear first strike without congressional approval; and getting the US out of the horrific civil war in Yemen. Walter will be missed."

Will Trump's Penchant For Making Enemies Kill Ryan's Tax Scam Bill In The Senate?

The more that comes out about the Republican Tax Scam bills, the worse it looks. The latest version is a very anti-education bill, targeting deductions for teacher out-of-pocket spending and for research by graduate students and eliminating student loan deductibility while keeping carried interest. It also gets a cut to private jet owners and all but eliminates the estate tax. Paul Ryan is still hopping around DC swearing it's a middle class tax break, not a tax break for the super-rich. "The Senate Finance Committee on Thursday," reported Matthew Goldstein, "adopted a provision similar to one included in the House’s tax plan that would extend the minimum holding period for investments that qualify for the tax break, known as the carried-interest loophole, to three years from one... Both the House and Senate plans have been criticized for delivering substantial tax cuts to wealthy people and corporations at the expense of middle-class taxpayers, some of whom would pay more in taxes, mostly because of the elimination of certain deductions."

Writing last week for Time, Nash Jenkins reported how 4 Republican senators are talking privately about how they can't support the bill because it balloons the national debt. They could shut the whole thing down.

Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake and Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford are among the four-- enough to stop a bill that can only spare two Republican defections-- who have concerns about a tax reform bill that was estimated to hike the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The other two senators have not publicly confirmed their concerns.

In an interview with Time on Tuesday, two days before the House voted to pass its version of the tax reform bill, Flake said that he believes the bill is larded with temporary gimmicks that will ultimately add even more than that to the deficit.

“I’ve been concerned for a long time on our debt and deficit-- that’s what animates me,” Flake told Time. “There are a couple other people who are concerned as well. We can do tax reform in ways that will grow the economy but we can’t just ignore the debt and deficit.”

Their concerns show the tricky needle that Republicans will have to thread to get the tax reform bill through the upper chamber using reconciliation, a parliamentary procedure that allows them to avoid a Democratic filibuster but imposes restrictions on how the bill is written.

On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin would be voting against it, saying it unduly favors corporations over small businesses. Maine Sen. Susan Collins has also raised concerns about a provision in the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance mandate.

But the deficit hawks’ criticisms could be the hardest to address, since the Republican leaders are already struggling to find ways to pay for tax cuts in the bill.

Flake pointed in particular to the provision known as “full expensing” that allows companies to write off their assets when paying taxes, costing the government potential tax revenue. The tax reform plan is set to sunset the provision after five years-- but the Arizona Republican isn’t convinced.

“Right now, in order to fit that in the budget window to keep us in reconciliation, we phase that out after five years. Nobody thinks it will be phased out after five years,” he said. “That’s the problem here. You phase it out after five years, it fits in this, but we know after five years they’re just going to do it again.”

In addition, the tax reform bill slashes the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%, curtails the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, and, under the Senate plan, does away with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Though Republicans have touted the tax reform bill as a boon for the middle class, new numbers from Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation show that taxes for those earning under $75,000 a year would increase by 2027.

Despite the bill’s troubles in the Senate, you can’t fault House Republicans for feeling festive about the bill’s passing. For the first time in a decade, Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House-- and yet they have failed so far to achieve any meaningful legislative victories; their losses, meanwhile, namely two unsuccessful attempts to repeal Obamacare, have been painful and public. Achieving tax reform would amount to a triumph that could stabilize the rocky G.O.P. ahead of the 2018 midterm elections next November.

It is also important to President Donald Trump, who is hungry for a win. Trump traveled to Capitol Hill on Thursday morning ahead of the House vote to encourage Republican lawmakers to vote for the package.

No one knows who the other two deficit hawks are who could tank the bill. Corker and McCain are the suspects. If those 4 plus Collins and RonJon, and possibly Murkowski vote NO, Trump and Trumpism will be left reeling and the Republican Party will fall into full-scale civil war. There are Republicans who very much want to see Trump fail miserably and be driven from office as soon as possible. Stabbing him, Caesar like, from the right must be very tempting. Last week, all of the Republican NO votes in the House were mainstream conservatives from SALT states-- New York, New Jersey and California-- except one: Walter Jones (R-NC). He's far more conservative than the rest-- and far more conservative than Trump-- and from a non-SALT state. He just happens to be a guy who votes according to principles rather than politics. "If this is going to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years, it’s not fair to our children and grandchildren,” said Jones. "If this was a Democratic bill we wouldn’t even be voting for it. That’s how hypocritical this place has become."

Is The U.S. Responsible For Erik Prince's Savage Mercenaries Murdering Civilians In Yemen?

Not many Americans are especially aware of Yemen, an ancient country at the foot of the Arabian peninsula. it isn't on many tourist itineraries and there hasn't been a lot of U.S. business involvement. The country is not oil rich. But there is a horrifying war going on that has brutally devastated the country being carried out by U.S. allies, primarily Saudi Arabia, but also Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain, all authoritarian anti-democratic, feudal countries. Oh and I forgot another participant: Trump's neo-Nazi amigo Erik Prince-- who Bannon is trying to persuade to run for a Wyoming U.S. Senate seat-- has his savage mercenaries committing mayhem in the country as well. The war is being fought with U.S.-supplied weapons and U.S. technological and strategic assistance. A million Yemenis have fled the country and another two and a half million are internal refugees. The situation can only be described as a humanitarian catastrophe. War crimes are being committed with alacrity-- and without accountability. Over 10,000 civilians have been killed and more than 40,000 injured, primarily by indiscriminate bombing.

Three very serious minded Members of Congress, Walter Jones (R-NC), Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) penned a joint editorial for the New York Times that ran yesterday, Stop The Unconstitutional War In Yemen. They start by asking us to "imagine that the entire population of Washington State-- 7.3 million people-- were on the brink of starvation, with the port city of Seattle under a naval and aerial blockade, leaving it unable to receive and distribute countless tons of food and aid that sit waiting offshore. This nightmare scenario is akin to the obscene reality occurring in the Middle East’s poorest country, Yemen, at the hands of the region’s richest, Saudi Arabia, with unyielding United States military support that Congress has not authorized and that therefore violates the Constitution."

Speaking of Seattle, the Member of Congress who represents Seattle in Pramila Jayapal, a stalwart progressive. She told us this morning that "My colleagues hit the nail on the head-- what’s happening in Yemen is horrifying. When a nation with a population the size of Washington state is suffering and the United States is involved, it is on us to ensure we’re doing all we can to promote peace and support human life. If these rates of famine, malnutrition and violence were occurring in our own country, there’s no way we could ignore it."

For nearly three years, the United States has been participating alongside a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in a brutal military campaign in Yemen. The United States is selling the Saudi monarchy missiles and warplanes, assisting in the coalition’s targeting selection for aerial bombings and actively providing midair refueling for Saudi and United Arab Emirates jets that conduct indiscriminate airstrikes-- the leading cause of civilian casualties. Meanwhile, the Saudi coalition is starving millions of Yemenis as a grotesque tactic of war.

This is horrifying. We have therefore introduced a bipartisan congressional resolution to withdraw American armed forces from these unauthorized hostilities in order to help put an end to the suffering of a country approaching “a famine of biblical proportions,” in the words of Jan Egeland, the head of the Norwegian Refugee Council. After all, as Foreign Policy has reported, the Saudi coalition’s “daily bombing campaign would not be possible without the constant presence of U.S. Air Force tanker planes refueling coalition jets.”

How did we get to this point?

In March 2015, the United States introduced its armed forces into the Saudi regime’s war against an uprising of Yemen’s Houthis, a rebel group that rapidly took control of Yemen’s capital, Sana, and eventually most of the country’s cities, by allying with forces loyal to an ousted former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh. But the Shiite Houthi rebels are in no way connected to the Sunni extremists of Al Qaeda or the Islamic State, which the United States has been going after across the globe under the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001. American participation in the war in Yemen is not covered by that authorization.

Al Qaeda has been referred to by The Associated Press as a “de facto ally” of Saudi Arabia and its coalition in their shared battle against the Houthis. This raises the question: Whom are we actually supporting in Yemen?

American involvement in this unauthorized conflict against the Houthis was pursued by the Obama administration for political purposes-- “a way of repairing strained ties with the Saudis, who strongly opposed the July 2015 nuclear deal with Iran,” as Foreign Policy put it.

There’s a good reason that the Constitution reserves for Congress the right to declare war-- a clause taken in modern times as forbidding the president from pursuing an unauthorized war in the absence of an actual or imminent threat to the nation. Clearly, the founders’ intent was to prevent precisely the kind of dangerous course we’re charting.

The State Department found that the Saudi war against the Houthis has allowed Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic State’s Yemen branch “to deepen their inroads across much of the country.” In other words, the power vacuum left by the war has made Al Qaeda’s deadliest branch stronger than ever-- yet there’s never been a public debate over the American role in deepening that threat to our own national security.

Four decades ago, as a bloody United States military campaign across Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos drew to a close, Congress overrode President Richard Nixon’s veto to enact the War Powers Resolution of 1973, reflecting the legislature’s determination to confront executive overreach as a coequal branch of government. Now we congressmen are invoking a provision of that 1973 law, which defines the introduction of armed forces to include coordinating, participating in the movement of, or accompanying foreign military forces.

That law affords our bill “privileged” status, guaranteeing a full floor vote to remove unauthorized United States forces from Saudi Arabia’s war against Yemeni Houthis. In doing so, we aim to reassert Congress’s sole constitutional authority to debate and declare war.

This resolution may create discomfort for some of our colleagues who have been content to cede Congress’s oversight responsibilities to the White House and Pentagon in recent decades. But now more than ever, the House of Representatives must serve as a counterweight to an executive branch that has long run roughshod over the Constitution-- especially at a time when our president has threatened, in front of the United Nations, to “totally destroy” an entire country, North Korea.

Exercising our constitutional duty is the key to alleviating the catastrophe that’s engulfing Yemen.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs declared last April that “Yemen is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world,” and in August the charity Save the Children warned that one million malnourished Yemeni children were at risk of contracting cholera. Nowhere else on earth today is there a catastrophe that is so profound and affects so many lives, yet could be so easy to resolve: halt the bombing, end the blockade, and let food and medicine into Yemen so that millions may live.

We believe that the American people, if presented with the facts of this conflict, will oppose the use of their tax dollars to bomb and starve civilians in order to further the Saudi monarchy’s regional goals. Our House resolution is a first step in expanding democracy into an arena long insulated from public accountability. Too many lives hang in the balance to allow this American war to continue without congressional consent. When our bill comes to the floor for a vote, our colleagues should consider first the solution proposed by the director of Unicef, Anthony Lake, for stopping the unimaginable suffering of millions of Yemenis: “Stop the war.”

When we reached Ro after publication of his OpEd, he told us that "You are seeing both progressives on the left and conservatives in the Freedom Caucus express concern about the neocon/neoliberal vision of foreign policy. There is an appetite for greater restraint and a recognition of the harms of interventionism. The hope is that the Congressional leadership will allow for a vote and recognize the bipartisan coalition that is growing for reasserting Congress' role in matters of war and peace." Congressional leadership... that means Paul Ryan, so, alas, probably very futile hopes.

The resolution already has 30 co-sponsors, including Ted Lieu (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Keith Ellison (D-MN), John Conyers (D-MI) and Tom Massie (R-KY)-- and that's just on day 1.

Walter Jones Understands The Tragedy In Afghanistan A Lot Better Than Señor Trumpanzee Or Paul Ryan

NC-03-- the Outer Banks and most of the state's coastal plain from the Virginia border south of Norfolk down past New Bern and Jacksonville. It's a very red district, R+11, and Walter Jones has been congressman there since 1994 (a year after he switched from Democrat to Republican). Romney beat Obama there, 59% to 41% and Trump did even better-- 60.5% to 36.9%-- last year. Jones did even better-- beating Democrat Ernest Reeves 67.2% to 32.8%.

Jones is a principled, libertarian-leaning social conservative. He votes for progressive legislation quite a lot. In fact his 41.18 ProgressivePunch crucial vote score for 2017 is the highest of any Republican-- by far-- and better than 17 House Democrats-- DINOs like Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-11.11), Henry Cuellar (TX-16.67), Collin Peterson (MN-16.67), Dan Lipinksi (IL-22.22), Tom O'Halleran (AZ-27.78), Josh Gottheimer (NJ-27.78), Ron Kind (WI-27.78), Ami Bera (CA-27.78), Stephanie Murphy (FL-29.41), Kurt Schrader (OR-29.41), Scott Peters (CA-33.33), Jim Costa (37.50), Raul Ruiz (CA-38.89), Lou Correa (CA-38.89), Jacky Rosen (NV-38.89), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY-38.89).

Ryan-- and Boehner before him-- have consistently struck out against Jones, penalizing him in committee assignments and encouraging right-wing nut jobs to run against him in primaries. Last year a deranged Trumpist, Phil Law, ran against Jones in the GOP primary and managed to win just over 20% of the Republican vote. A sleazy right-wing lobbyist, Taylor Griffin, also ran and he nearly got 15% of the primary vote. Reeves, the Democrat, raised no money for the general election but in the primary Griffin spent $345,966 and Law spent $145,404. (Jones spent a total of $693,517 for the primary and general.)

The Republican Establishment hatred for Jones seems to endear him to his own constituents, who like his independence. He's the most anti-war of all the Republicans in Congress and is famous for once telling a conference of Ron Paul supporters that "Lyndon Johnson’s probably rotting in hell right now because of the Vietnam War, and he probably needs to move over for Dick Cheney." A few days ago he told PJMedia that Congress should stop funding the war in Afghanistan. He opposes Trump sending more troops and opposes the idea of "trying to build empires around the world." He also pointed out that Congress hasn't had a debate about the war in Afghanistan since 2001. Jones:

I’m absolutely opposed to it, because if you increase the number of American troops that means the number of Americans to be killed and wounded goes up. And again, I come back to the point, what have we accomplished? We spent over $800 billion dollars. We are very close to $1 trillion in the past 16 years.

We've had over 2,200 Americans killed and 20,000 wounded. What have we accomplished? In fact, [Hamid] Karzai, the former leader of Afghanistan, is now trying to get the Russians to negotiate with the Taliban so he can go back into power. It’s now like the Wild West that is wilder than it has ever been… by increasing the number of troops, all you’re doing is increasing the odds of American troops being killed or wounded.

History has proven it doesn't work going back to the Roman Empire. I mean, anybody that knows history-- that's what [former Marine Corps Commandant] Gen. Charles Krulak has said to me many times-- if you know history, you will know that no one is going to change Afghanistan. It is a tribal nation.

More important than the money is young men and women are being killed and wounded and Congress has a constitutional responsibility to debate and vote about sending our young men and women to war, but we don't do debates like those anymore. Yes, there have been efforts by Democrats and Republicans to put amendments on appropriations bills with money going to Afghanistan, but really no policy debate at all.

We've written [Paul Ryan] letters, we talked to him personally and he has not [asked the committees of jurisdiction to mark up a new Authorization for Use of Military Force]. This is going to be an effort of trying to get more and more members of Congress of both parties to come together for no other reason but to say after 16 years is it now a time to debate the issues of our country and our military in Afghanistan, and what’s the definition of victory? After 16 years we have no definition of victory. We’re saying you, not the president, but you have the authority as leader of the House to permit your members of the House to meet their constitutional responsibility of debating war. It's not up to the president, it's up to the Speaker of the House and he hasn’t done it."

Matt Coffay and Jenny Marshall, progressive Democrats, running for Congress on the opposite side of North Carolina, both supports with what Jones is trying to accomplish. "I firmly agree with Rep. Jones' opposition to a troop and spending increase in Afghanistan," Matt told us, "and second his suggestion that Congress hold an open debate about our military involvement there. After maintaining a decade and a half-long military presence, it's long past time that we reassess-- in Jones' words-- how exactly we define "victory" in Afghanistan. America ought to have the smartest, sleekest, most efficient, and most effective military in the world. A troop increase in Afghanistan won't get us any closer to that goal. And neither will defense spending increases, unless the spending is done intelligently. The new defense budget proposed by Trump includes the construction of 84 new fighter jets, to the tune of billions of dollars for taxpayers--but do those jets really keep us safer? Threats to the United States continue to evolve, and beyond Jones' call to reexamine Afghanistan, I believe we also need to reexamine how and where we're allocating our defense spending across the board. Are we spending money to keep Americans safer, and to make our military the best in the world? Or are we spending money for the benefit of the military-industrial complex?"

Jenny added that "The U.S. has spent 1.7 Trillion dollars in direct war appropriations over the last 15 years, but counting the cost of war in dollars neglects the human loss of life and the lingering effects once the bullets have stopped flying. Nita Crawford from Brown University states 'A full accounting of any war’s burdens cannot be places in columns on a ledger, from the civilians harmed or displaced by violence, to the soldiers killed and wounded, to the children who play years later on roads and fields sown with improvised explosive devices and cluster bombs, no set of numbers can convey the human toll of the wars.' Yet, we can know the numbers of the ever-rising death toll. 3,407 US and Allied troops, 3,540 US Contractors, 406 humanitarian workers and journalists, 31,419 civilians in Afghanistan alone. The numbers for the wounded are staggering. So, when the war hawks beat their drums remember that war must be the last option because the cost is just too high."

Back in 2001 there was only one member of Congress with the guts to say NO to Bush and Cheney and their bloodlust when it came to attacking Afghanistan: Oakland Democrat Barbara Lee. She is the model of courageousness in Congress and an inspiration to anyone thinking about taking a difficult vote of conscience. Last night she told us she admires Walter Jones' own efforts in ending the Afghanistan debacle. "Congressman Jones has been a steadfast leader in the effort to rein in our endless wars and he’s completely right. After a decade and a half in Afghanistan, it’s past time to learn there is no military solution to this conflict. We will continue to urge Speaker Ryan to allow Congress to hold a debate and vote on the repeal of the 2001 AUMF, which is nothing more than a blank check for endless war. Additionally, we will keep demanding that President Trump listen to the war-weary American public and bring our troops home."

If iron worker and union activist Randy Bryce-- who was unanimously reelected by the Wisconsin Democratic Party to head their veterans division this past weekend-- beats Paul Ryan in the 2018 midterms, he will be another Democrat with the kind of guts it takes to cast votes of conscience, the way Barbara Lee did. He told us that "Under a Democratic President, Osama bin Laden was taken out. Under Republican leadership, the key to the Oval Office has been handed over to the Russians. What do we have left to gain in Afghanistan after 16 years? Trump made a promise to rid the world of ISIL within 30 days of taking office. Time is up." He continued:

It might be a subject for debate if those returning from wars were taken care of, but, we’re not. Further draconian cuts to help our heroes once returned are in the proposed budget.

I know Paul Ryan isn’t a fan of working together in a bipartisan manner (i.e. Health care) but, this should be a no brainer for anyone who looks at the subject for more than a few minutes.

When it comes to veterans, I don’t see any partisan lines. Veterans are the only reason why we continue to have the freedom to choose how to think politically.

Veterans don’t ask what party another vet identifies with before offering the shirt off a back-- we help however we can because it is the correct thing to do.

Paul Ryan-- even though you are afraid to face us in the 1st CD, please do something to show us that you still have some semblance of compassion by letting our troops come home. Do what we did to protect our country-- work together to achieve a goal. We all took an oath.

Show us you are capable, and, maybe you won’t need to be so afraid to face us. It’s been over 600 days since you’ve had a town hall.

Paul Ryan And Virginia Foxx Are Lying About What TrumpCare Will Do To Folks In North Carolina

Among the standard GOP lies about TrumpCare-- promulgated by Ryan's office-- is that the process was not rushed or chaotic. When Ryan was on This Week with George Stephanopoulos Sunday morning, he responded to a question about the disorderly process by claiming such assertions are "a bogus attack from the left." Many Republicans have admitted they never read the bill; I suspect the majority hasn't read it and that the decisions most made to support it was a political calculation, not a decision based on policy considerations.

One Republican who showed Ryan up as a liar was principled North Carolina conservative Walter Jones, one of the 20 Republicans to vote NO. He explained his vote on his official congressional website and Ryan's disjointed process poisoning the well played into his decision.

“For over seven years, I have heard from the people of Eastern North Carolina about their trials and frustrations with Obamacare. It is clear that Obamacare is not working. That is why I voted against the bill that created it in 2010, and have continuously voted to repeal it,” said Congressman Jones. “Now in 2017, for reasons I cannot understand, instead of moving a bill to repeal Obamacare and replace it with reforms that will fix our broken health care system, the Washington Republican leadership jammed a bill through the House that does neither. Furthermore, the rushed, behind-closed-doors process they’ve used is shameful. Over the past several weeks, they cut deal after deal to secure members’ support, and then pushed the bill to the floor without a CBO score.  As a result, no one has any idea how much those deals will cost the American taxpayers, or how they might affect the cost, quality and availability of health insurance coverage for American families. Seven years ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi infamously said of the Obamacare bill: ‘You have to pass the bill so we can find out what’s in it.’ Sadly, the Washington Republican leadership is repeating the same mistakes.”

 “Furthermore, there are many aspects of the bill that deeply trouble me because of their potential effects on Eastern North Carolina and rural America. For example, the bill discriminates against as many as 7 million American veterans by making them ineligible to receive tax credits provided in the bill. It would also result in low-to-middle income seniors paying dramatically higher premiums.”

“Over the past two months, thousands of Eastern North Carolinians of all political stripes have contacted my office about the AHCA,” Congressman Jones concluded.  “Well over 90 percent are opposed to the bill. I asked for this job to represent the people of Eastern North Carolina, and they have spoken clearly.”

And these are the most commonly used words by Americans to describe the GOP leader

Halfway across the state, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx represents a Piedmont district that includes part of Winston-Salem and points west. Foxx couldn't disagree more with Walter Jones and is a huge proponent of taking healthcare away from poor people. The DCCC doesn't target her-- not ever-- but this cycle, grassroots Democrats in NC-05 are ignoring the DCCC and going after Foxx themselves. Jenny Marshall is the progressive candidate in the race, endorsed by Blue America. She's working to hold Foxx accountable and make sure the district's voters know what her record really is all about. Jenny is making clear what Foxx's support of TrumpCare means for the district-- where 30,059 people will lose their coverage if TrumpCare is ever signed into law. Earlier today she reminded us that "Foxx once said 'There are no Americans who don’t have healthcare. Everybody in this country has access to healthcare.' She was wrong then and she is wrong now. There is no access when people cannot afford to buy healthcare insurance and cover the out of pocket expenses. There is no access when people wait for far too long to seek care because of the rising cost of doctors' visits, prescription costs and medical procedures. People have been priced out of the care they need, but Foxx has turned a blind eye. Her yes vote on the AHCA was confirmation of that. I on the other hand support moving to a single payer program that covers not only medical, but vision and dental care as well. We must step up and do what is right for the people of this country. Act now to send people to Congress who will represent the will of the people. Lives depend on it."

This Is What Bipartisan Means-- Standing Up Against Illegal War

Wait, wait. First let me tell you what is not bipartisan. When Ryan and McCarthy-- sometimes with the connivance of corporate contributors-- lure votes from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, that is just opportunism, not bipartisanism. This cycle the half dozen faux-Dems most inclined to vote for Ryan's toxic agenda over a wide range of issues have been (from bad to worse): Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL) and Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ). Their backing doesn't make anything "bipartisan." None of them are actual Democrats and all have earned primaries. I believe tomorrow the first of these monsters, Kyrsten Sinema, in fact, will get an official primary opponent. No, "bipartisan" is something different from the cockamamie, incoherent politics Sinema and her values-free right-wing friends have embraced.

This week, 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans saw the Washington Post headline story, Trump Administration Weighs Deeper Involvement In Yemen War and reacted the way we all expect our members of Congress to react. They cast partisan considerations to the winds and took truly bipartisan action to head this potential catastrophe off at the pass.

The four-- Ted Lieu (D-CA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Walter Jones (R-NC) and Justin Amash (R-MI)-- weren't eager to read that the Trump Regime is "considering escalating U.S. military involvement in the two-year-old Saudi Arabia-led conflict against Yemen’s Houthi forces, which has left thousands of Yemenis dead and millions on the verge of starvation. One administration official acknowledged to the Post that the proposal under deliberation could be seen as 'a green light for direct involvement in a major war.'" That was from a dear colleague letter they sent to every member of the House, bypassing the Republican and the Democratic House leadership. And this is the letter to Trump and Jeff Sessions that Lieu, Pocan, Jones and Amash are asking all members of Congress to sign on to:

President Donald J. Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

CC: Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Dear Mr. President:

We write to express our serious concern over reports that your administration is actively considering “direct support for the anti-Houthi coalition” of militaries led by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Administration officials are said to be weighing proposals to provide Saudi-led forces with “surveillance and intelligence, refueling, and operational planning assistance” against the Shia Houthis who control most of Yemen’s population centers. One administration official acknowledged that a removal of preexisting White House prohibitions on such assistance could be viewed as “a green light for direct involvement in a major war.”

Direct U.S. hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis would run counter to your pledge to pursue a “disciplined, deliberate and consistent foreign policy” that protects American families in “every decision." Indeed, according to U.S. defense officials, the U.S.-backed Saudi war against Houthis in Yemen has already “strengthened al Qaeda there” and poses “a serious threat to U.S. security.”

We share the concerns of some of your advisers, who worry that direct support for the Saudi coalition’s war against Houthis “would take too many resources away from the counterterrorism fight against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.” We are further troubled by news reports indicating that Al Qaeda in Yemen has “emerged as a de facto ally” of the Saudi-led militaries with whom your administration aims to partner more closely. According to press accounts, Al Qaeda in Yemen has fought against the Houthis on the same side as Saudi coalition forces in several battles near Taiz and al-Bayda, while also operating closely with Saudi-financed Islamist militias.

Moreover, Congress has never authorized the actions under consideration. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) sought and received by President George W. Bush, which has been interpreted to apply to Al Qaeda and associated forces, has never been cited by any government official as justification for U.S. involvement in military actions against Yemen’s Houthis. The Houthis have never been “associated forces” to Al Qaeda; they are Zaydis, a branch of Shiite Islam, and strongly oppose the Sunni Al Qaeda, which promotes sectarian violence against Shia.

Engaging our military against Yemen’s Houthis when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers clearly delineated in the Constitution. For this reason, we write to request that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) provide, without delay, any legal justification that it would cite if the administration intends to engage in direct hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis without seeking congressional authorization.

As U.S. Representatives, we take seriously the right and responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of force, or to refuse to do so, as mandated by the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution. We expect that any direct military actions pursued by the administration against the Yemeni Houthis be brought before Congress for consideration and authorization for approval before they are executed.

In August 2013, when President Obama threatened to bomb Syrian government forces without congressional approval, a large, bipartisan group of U.S. Representatives objected. They urged the president “to consult and receive authorization from Congress,” noting that the president’s “responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.” President Obama subsequently agreed to seek congressional authorization.

In light of the gravity of a potential U.S. military escalation in Yemen, we additionally seek the OLC’s prompt legal opinions concerning:

• Defense Secretary James Mattis’s proposal to aid the Saudi military coalition in attempting to seize the Houthi-controlled Yemeni port of Hodeidah. The current, Saudi-enforced blockade of Hodeidah-- a main entry point for food, medicine and humanitarian aid-- is pushing Yemen to the brink of famine. Over 50 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to use “all U.S. diplomatic tools” to reopen the port, noting that nearly half a million Yemeni children are “nearing starvation.” Saudi-led airstrikes have destroyed the Hodeidah province’s roads and bridges, leaving “unexploded rockets” inside the port that further prevent vital aid shipments from effectively reaching the more than 7.3 million Yemenis in need of urgent food assistance.10 In addition to the possibility that a U.S.-assisted operation to capture Hodeidah could worsen Yemen’s humanitarian situation, U.S. involvement in such an action has never been authorized by Congress.

• Your administration’s “increased logistical support for the Saudi-led bombing campaign” against Houthis in recent days. U.S. Senators Rand Paul and Chris Murphy have noted that the Obama administration never received congressional authorization for refueling and targeting assistance to Saudi coalition warplanes. We wish to know your legal justification for continuing and expanding this policy in the absence of such authorization.

• The recent threat by your administration to intercept an Iranian ship in international waters “to look for contraband weapons possibly headed to Houthi fighters in Yemen.” While Secretary Mattis was reported to have “ultimately decided to set the operation aside, at least for now,” we wish to know how such an interdiction-- an act of hostilities-- would be legally justified despite having no prior congressional authorization.

The United States has participated in Saudi-led airstrikes that have been blamed for most of Yemen’s 10,000 civilian deaths, creating a security vacuum that Al Qaeda has exploited to expand its base of operations. We therefore urge you to terminate U.S. refueling for Saudi coalition warplanes and end, rather than increase, U.S. logistical assistance for the Saudi-led bombings in Yemen. At minimum, any decision by the administration to engage in direct U.S. hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis must be subject to a congressional debate and vote, as the framers of the Constitution intended and the 1973 War Powers Resolution demands. As you know, the War Powers Resolution provides a mechanism for individual Members of Congress to force the question of congressional authorization if the administration is not forthcoming in seeking approval for a planned military action.

We await your prompt response regarding any legal rationale for U.S. participation in hostilities against Houthi forces in Yemen and whether your administration plans to seek approval from Congress. Your timely answer is appreciated as we explore how best to assert our constitutional role of oversight and authorization over such actions.

  Sincerely

In coming days, we'll let you know which members of Congress sign on-- and which want to see more war in Yemen, with more U.S. involvement. Remember, it's essential that the Trump administration follow the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and consult and receive authorization from Congress before engaging in direct U.S. hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis.

Some Republicans Are Trying To Deny They Were Backing The TrumpCare Catastrophe

Sunday, Texas conservative Ted Poe resigned from the Freedom Caucus because of TrumpCare. He was for it. The Caucus was, by and large, against it. Maybe Poe was afraid of Trump's wrath but that is odd in a Houston area district that wasn't especially pro-Trump. Romney won Poe's district with 63%, around the same that McCain won it with. Trump only managed 52.4%. And had Trumpcare been enacted into law-- and Poe never made any bones about voting for it-- 26,054 of his constituents would have found themselves without health insurance. His district includes Montrose, one of the biggest and most vibrant LGBT communities in America, but the DCCC has never once given Poe a serious challenge to reelection. So he knows he can behave like a dirt-bag with alacrity. So far he has no opponent for 2018.

Over the weekend, conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan speculated that Trump has-- finally-- had it... or rather the American public has had it with Trump and his vile kakistocracy. "Trump still shows alarming potential as a would-be tyrant, contemptuous of constitutional proprieties, and prone to trashing every last norm of liberal democracy," he warned. "But he is also beginning to appear simultaneously as a rather weak chief executive, uninterested in competent management or follow-through, bedeviled by divisions within his own party, transfixed by cable news, and swiftly discrediting himself by an endless stream of lies, delusions, and conspiracy theories." And with no credibility left, at least not, according to Sullivan, "among sane people." Sullivan also warned the Republicans that the midterms aren't going to be kind to them in 2018.

A president hobbled domestically by his own party’s divisions and the opposition’s new energy may be tempted-- Putin-like-- to change the subject in a way that vaults him back to popularity. A foreign altercation from which he will not back down? A trade war? A smidge likelier, I’d say, is an over-the-top response to an inevitable jihadist terror attack in a major American city. A demagogue loses much of his power when he tries to wrestle complicated legislation through various political factions, in the way our gloriously inefficient Constitution requires. He regains it with rank fear, polarization, and a raw show of force. Heaven knows what the Constitution will look like once he’s finished.

The other possibility is that Trump really does at some point realize he’s sinking fast and decides on a hard pivot. He wants to win and be loved, and if he keeps losing and becomes more widely loathed with his current strategy, it’s by no means out of character for him to recalibrate. He could use the possible failure of Trumpcare to feed Paul Ryan to the Breitbartians, and reach out to Democrats on a tweaked Obamacare and infrastructure package. He could dump Bannon the way he dumped Manafort and bullshit his way through all the inconsistencies (the one thing he remains rather good at). He could wrest himself like Kong on Skull Island from the giant lizards and become the tribune of the forgotten men and women he wants to be, and combine nationalism and protectionism with, er, socialism, like his heroine Marine Le Pen. He could finally realize the potential he has thrown away so far, and become an American Perón.

The only snag with this strategy, of course, is that he could hard-pivot only to find himself a Kong who’s alienated from the GOP and obstructed by the emboldened Dems, a rogue, bleeding president without a party, marooned on his own island of polarized irrelevance.

The Times' Alexander Burns reported over the weekend that the ignominious collapse of TrumpCare amidst disastrous polling numbers and internal Republican Party in-fighting is leaving the bill's supporters "in a political jam back home". He mentioned, as examples, two very vulnerable Republicans. "John Faso of New York negotiated a side deal for his state in exchange for backing it. Mike Coffman was the lone Colorado lawmaker to endorse the bill, while his Republican neighbors agonized and stalled."

But with the collapse of the legislation on Friday, such Republican representatives now have nothing to show for their trouble. They ventured far out on a political limb, only to watch it disintegrate behind them. And when they run for re-election next year, they may have to defend their support for a politically explosive bill that many Republicans backed only reluctantly, and that never came close to reaching the president’s desk.

The fiasco in Washington is already rippling at home: Back in their districts, there are early signs of backlash against these lawmakers, including from constituents who voted Republican last November.

...National Republicans, still reeling from their unexpected defeat, expressed hope that health care might fade as an issue before the congressional elections in 2018. With more than a year and a half until voters next pass judgment on the Republican-controlled Congress, party leaders say they have plenty of time to record victories on issues like a tax code overhaul and infrastructure spending. Mr. Trump and Speaker Paul D. Ryan indicated on Friday that they did not intend to revisit health care in the near future.

But Republican strategists also acknowledged that they would probably have to give extra help to vulnerable members of Congress who supported the health care bill. Corry Bliss, the chief strategist for the Congressional Leadership Fund, a “super PAC” backed by Mr. Ryan, said the group would go out of its way to protect lawmakers who backed the bill. “We are committed to helping advance the legislative agenda of House leadership,” Mr. Bliss said on Saturday. “Of course we are going to give preferential treatment to friends and allies.”

By contrast, Mr. Bliss noted that the group had cut off funding to Representative David Young of Iowa, a Republican who opposed the health care bill.

It is unclear whether voters’ anger over health care will be enough help Democrats win a majority in the House next year.

The Democratic candidates we talked to since the bill imploded last week don't seem unclear at all. Katie Hill, for example, is running against a wishy-washy, scared-of-his-own-shadow Republican, Steve Knight. Last cycle, the DCCC forced some guy from outside the district on local Democrats and while Hillary won the blue-leaning district 50.3% to 43.6%, Knight won reelection over the hapless DCCC shill, 112,768 (54.2%) to 95,296 (45.8%). Katie is working on doing a lot better. We asked her how to characterize the differences between herself and Knight on Ryan's health care plan. "From my perspective, it was a terrible plan right from the start," she told us. "Out of party loyalty and an apparent lack of concern for his constituents who would lose coverage, Knight acted like the proposal had merit. He refused to take a real public stand one way or the other, so the fact that he didn't have to actually vote on it must have been a huge relief to him. Nonetheless, we know that he has not been standing up to say that all of his constituents deserve and need affordable health care. I promise to do that if I'm elected to replace him. Even though the ACA is still intact, we have a long way to go to really fix our health care system. I'm ready to fight for that in Congress. True leaders are more than just people who vote for or against what their party leadership tells them to. Unfortunately, Congressman Knight has not demonstrated his own core values that are not dependent on party lines. Folks in the Antelope Valley, Simi Valley and Santa Clarita expect and deserve real leadership, not someone who is afraid of standing up to the party establishment and special interests that back them. I will make the district I grew up in proud that they sent a local woman to Congress to make real change happen for the people in our communities and our country."

Darrell Issa and his most important constituent

Doug Applegate nearly beat Darrell Issa in the San Diego area last year. He's determined to finish the job in 2018. It didn't help Issa any that he kept wavering on the bill every time he got tugged in one direction or another. "It was an embarrassing week for Congressional Republicans," Applegate told us, "but it was even more embarrassing for Darrell Issa. When TrumpCare was first written, protests erupted at Issa’s office and Issa said he would vote no. But when Donald Trump sat down with Issa and asked him to support a bill that would cause 24 million Americans to lose health insurance, Issa flip flopped and supported it. I guess we know where Darrell’s true loyalty lies."

Voters on the South Shore of Long Island are trying to persuade DuWayne Gregory to run against Peter King again this year. King's dilly-dallying around the whole healthcare issue didn't endear him to anyone on either side of the contentious issue. DuWayne, who's the Presiding Officer of the Suffolk County Legislature told us that "King did the politically cowardly thing in regard TrumpCare; he tried to conceal his position from his own constituents. He instructed his staff to tell any callers that he was leaning no then after hundreds of calls, he changed that to "undecided." And yet, it was reported that during President Trump's visit to Capitol Hill to meet with GOP lawmakers he pointed out King saying they had grown up near each other in Queens. King was quoted afterwards as saying that "it would be difficult to vote no" after being singled out like that. Peter King's district was slated to be one of the worse affected by the AHCA with nearly 82,000 constituents to have lost insurance. Trumpcare was a disaster for those on Medicaid, also allowing insurers off the hook for providing maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health and more egregious provisions. Look at this; it's what they wanted to deny coverage for:

"Peter King and the New York State Republican delegation had negotiated an added bonus for New York State county governments by attempting to shift the cost of Medicaid to the state. This provision was labeled an attack on New York by Governor Cuomo. Worse yet, preliminary estimates of this, New York only, provision would have cost Suffolk County over $100 million. To think Peter King would have voted against the interests of millions of Americans and thousands of his own constituents simply because Trump recognized him is embarrassing and failure as a leader."

We introduced you to Dr. Jason Westin early in the month. He's a progressive candidate-- and a cancer specialist-- running against John Culberson in a district Hillary won 48.5% to 47.1% (after Romney beat Obama there 59.9% to 38.6%. He told me today that "Congressman Culberson knows that his district (TX-07) will be targeted by the DCCC and other groups as a pickup opportunity if the right candidate emerges for 2018. As a savvy career politician, he recognized that taking a position on the TrumpCare bill would open him up to criticism from his left or his right. He showed his true colors by taking no public position, despite his having co-sponsored H.R. 277 on January 4th, 2017, a much harsher 'root and branch' repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Surprising no one, he told local press after the bill was withdrawn that he 'absolutely' was supporting TrumpCare. The voters of TX-07 deserve a representative who will be honest, explain and not hide their vote, and be open to feedback. As my team says, we will 'Repeal and Replace' Culberson on 11/06/18."

You want to be sure a Republican was sincere about not supporting Ryan's horrific TrumpCare mess, look at the records. For example, mainstream, libertarian-leaning North Carolina conservative Walter Jones wrote a long piece for his constituents on his official house website where he explains why he would vote against TrumpCare. "Over the past two and half weeks," he wrote, "over 1,000 Eastern North Carolinians of all political stripes have contacted my office. Well over 90 percent are opposed to the bill. I asked for this job to represent the people of Eastern North Carolina, and they have spoken clearly. Furthermore, there are many aspects of the bill that deeply trouble me because of their potential effects on Eastern North Carolina and rural America. For example, the bill discriminates against as many as 7 million American veterans by making them ineligible to receive tax credits provided in the bill. It would also result in low-to-middle income seniors paying dramatically higher premiums. For instance, a 64-year old making $26,500 a year would see their annual premium jump from $1,700 to $14,600. It’s time to scrap this flawed bill and start over. Go out across the country, gather people’s input, and use an open, public process to thoughtfully craft a bill that delivers the relief the American people need." 

Compare Jones' clear, forthright, well-reasoned statement of opposition to the deceitful mumbo-jumbo that spewed out of crooks like Issa, King, Culberson and Knight.

Living In The Promised Land

This ugly sour puss is Blue Dog Brad Ashford, the only "Democrat" to co-sponsor the anti-refugee bill

In regard to last Thursday's ugly anti-immigrant vote in the House, we've mostly been concentrating on the 47 coward, craven Democrats who voted with the GOP on that shameful 289-137 roll call. The cowards from the Steve Israel wing of the party, your Patrick Murphys, Kathleen Rices, Pete Aguilars, and John Delaneys, many of them Republican-lite Dems that Israel helped recruit for just these kinds of votes. But that 289-137 wasn't always 289-137. At one point it was 288-138 and instead of 2 Republicans voting against Michael McCaul's vicious anti-refugee legislation (co-sponsored by 102 Republicans plus one rot-gut Blue Dog, Nebraska "ex"-Republican Brad Ashford), there were 3 Republicans voting no.

Iowa racist Steve King voted against it because he wanted a more strident and overtly anti-Muslim bill. Walter Jones (R-NC) told his constituents that he voted against it because the bill would do nothing to cut off the funding for Obama’s plan to import tens of thousands of Middle Eastern refugees into the U.S. Maybe he was listening to too much Trump on Fox News. "Defunding President Obama’s refugee program," he said, "is the only way to ensure that America can actually stop a refugee influx until we can determine without question that we are not giving terrorists a free pass into the United States. Congress can defund the program in the appropriations bill which will come to the floor in early December. To ensure our safety, Congress must seize that opportunity and use its constitutional power of the purse. Short of that, even if today’s bill were to pass the Congress and be signed into law, the President would still retain the power to let in whoever, and however many, refugees he pleases. And given the President’s unwavering support for open borders, unchecked illegal immigration, and mass importation of foreign refugees, we know he can’t be trusted with that authority." GOP hardliners usually call him a "moderate," a "squish" and a "RINO." Tough crowd!

But the third Republican who voted against the bill, Oklahoma City wing-nut Steve Russell, has a whole other take on how the GOP has been using the Paris terrorist attack for narrow partisan gain. The video of him speaking on the floor last week (just below) doesn't sound anything like what you've been hearing from partisan hacks like Paul Ryan, let alone the sociopaths running for president. It's short; listen to what he said:



So when he voted against McCaul's ugly bill, no one should have been surprised, right? Yeah, they shouldn't have been-- but they were. In fact, Russell-- a proud combat veteran-- says after he voted against the bill he was "surrounded" by angry Republicans demanding he switch his vote like the rest of the herd, claiming the bill wouldn't be "veto-proof" if he voted against it. That isn't even true but, despite the high-sounding rhetoric about how we should "not become the America that ISIS wants us to be," tough Steve Russell meekly informed the clerk that he was changing his vote to "aye." He's the opposite of cowardly coke freak Pete Aguilar, a corrupt New Dem from San Bernardino, who has been bragging that he only voted with the Republicans against the refugees because his constituents are too dumb to understand the nuances and that he'd switch to opposition if Obama vetoes the bill and he's needed to sustain the veto. One cowardly New Dem to pair up with one cowardly Republican. No wonder Americans hate Congress so much!

The progressive Democrat running for the seat Russell hold, Tom Guild, who Blue America has endorsed, told us that "My opponent Rep. Clyde 'Steve' Russell debated against a bill making it virtually impossible for Syrian refugees to immigrate to the U.S. to escape persecution and death.  He debated against the GOP-sponsored bill by saying it was xenophobic and a "knee-jerk" reaction. Then after being pressured by Republicans in the House he voted for the bill he had just characterized as xenophobic and a "knee-jerk" reaction. He has shown the entire world that he can say one thing now and vote the opposite way minutes later. We can't count on him to keep his word. I support the current system that takes up to two years to vet Syrian refugees before they are approved for immigration to America. I will be true to my word and not do a bait-and-switch on voters when voting on issues before Congress."

Alan Grayson, a candidate for the open Florida Senate seat, is running against 3 right-wing cowards, Republicans David Jolly and Ron DeSantis and "ex"-Republican New Dem Patrick Murphy, all of whom voted against the refugees. Grayson, as you can probably imagine, had something to say about that-- and immediately.

Earlier today, Patrick Murphy chose fear over humanity when he voted in favor of a Republican bill that will make it nearly impossible for Syrian refugees fleeing terrorism in their homeland to come to the United States.

We’re not sure whether it was Patrick Murphy’s fear of orphans and widows with brown skin that caused him to vote for this atrocious bill, or if it was his fear of going against the Republican Party. But, either way, he chose fear over humanity. Hate, over love. He has proven once again that he doesn’t have the courage to do what is right when times are hard. And we can’t have another person like that in the US Senate.

This bill does nothing to punish the terrorists who have killed so many. It does nothing to make us safe-- all it does is deliver Daesh (ISIS) another victory because Congress is giving in to the fear they’re peddling.

This bill punishes the homeless, stateless refugees whose only mistake is believing that when we say we are a nation that welcomes the huddled masses, we actually mean it. Many of these refugees are trying to escape the same terrorists that we’re trying to stop. It would be inhumane to deny them safe passage to the United States based on the color of their skin and their religion.

In the past few days Republicans have called for a religious test for refugees, talked about closing down Mosques and shutting our borders to refugees. Now Patrick Murphy has shown once again that he stands with Republicans in all of their fear-mongering craziness.

We don’t need a Senator that thinks, acts, or votes like Donald Trump or Ben Carson.

His campaign concluded by reminding his supporters that "Alan Grayson will always fight for equality, justice, and peace. He’ll always fight for the most vulnerable amongst us, and he will never back down in building an America we can be proud of."

The next day he wanted to make sure everyone got the message about what a worm Murphy is. "What do terrorists want? To change people’s religions?" he asked rhetorically. "No" he responded to his own question.

They want to cause terror. And this week, when my opponent Patrick Murphy voted to block Syrian refugees from entering our country because he was terrified, he gave them exactly what they wanted.

We will not end terrorism with fear, nor closed borders, nor bombs. We will end terrorism when we are able to overcome our fear, and have the courage to be humane. Without terror, there can be no terrorism.

Our country chose fear over compassion when we rejected refugees from Europe fleeing Nazism. Fearmongers said that there might be Nazis among the masses. We know what happened after that.

We’re supposed to be the land of the free, and the home of the brave. We’re supposed to welcome the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of the teeming shore, the homeless, the tempest-tost. And in the past, we haven’t been.

But now, we have an opportunity to live up to these ideals and values that we’ve claimed for so long. We can choose to be courageous and compassionate.

Patrick Murphy and his Republican friends want our country to be scared into submission by these terrorists. That’s the easy thing to do. But we don’t have to let them, or the terrorists, win. We can do what is hard, and what is right. We can prove once and for all that we are the land of the free, and the home of the brave, and that we don’t negotiate with terrorists.

And most importantly of all, we can help those who need it the most. We can lift our lamp beside the golden door.

And then on Monday, Grayson shared a moving experience he had had right after the vote, an event at Constitution Hall honoring Willie Nelson.

Willie Nelson did something magical. Something I’ll never forget. After that miserable anti-refugee vote earlier that day, he found the perfect way to honor our common humanity.

Willie received the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song, bestowed by the Library of Congress. In his honor, a packed auditorium listened to covers of his great songs, performed by Neil Young, Paul Simon, Cyndi Lauper, and a dozen other amazing performers. At the end of that incredible show, Willie himself took the stage, with his two sons and a few others, and he performed three wonderful songs.

Willie could have played “On the Road Again,” “To All the Girls I’ve Loved Before,” and “Crazy,” and left it at that. It was his night, receiving one of the highest honors America can bestow. But he knew that the House of Representatives had passed a terrible slam-the-door-in-their-faces bill just a few hours earlier, and that a number of Congressmen who voted for that awful piece of offal were in the audience. In fact, one of them, Kevin McCarthy, was sitting almost right next to him.

So Willie Nelson saved his best for last. He reached deep, deep down in his personal playlist, and pulled out a song from three decades ago. His last song that night was a musical slap in the face to those who had voted, just a couple of hours earlier, to turn away people in danger, in desperate need. The song is called “Living in the Promiseland,” and it starts like this:

Give us your tired and weak,
And we will make them strong.
Bring us your foreign songs,
And we will sing along.
Leave us your broken dreams,
We’ll give them time to mend.
There’s still a lot of love,
Living in the Promiseland.

The audience went wild. Absolutely, totally wild.

And I felt proud that I had voted against that stinking meadow-muffin of a bill, that putrid cow pie in the form of legislation. Proud to be in the audience, honoring that great man. Proud to be part of the worldwide community of decent human beings.

After the show, I went to Willie’s tour bus, joined him and his wife Annie, and thanked them both.

Willie Nelson, November 18, 2015: It could have been his night, and his night alone. But he made it our night.

Here's some of that performance Grayson was lucky enough to see:



And here's the whole song:



Suggestion: help Grayson win the Florida Senate seat Rubio is giving up instead of electing someone every bit as bad as Rubio. Please contribute what you can here.