Friday, June 21, 2019

Blue Dogs And New Dems Team Up With The GOP To Permit Unwarranted Spying On American Citizens

>


Late Tuesday night, the House voted on an amendment offered by Justin Amash (R-MI) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) to an omnibus appropriations bill. The amendment failed 253-175. It was voted down by an institutionally conservative coalition that included 127 Republicans and 126 Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party— primarily New Dems, Blue Dogs and associated shitheads (like Steny Hoyer). Voting to pass the bill were almost every progressive in the House (110) of them + a motley crew of 65 Republicans. The rejected bill was meant to end unwarranted federal mass surveillance of phone calls, texts, and browsing histories of the American people (the stuff Ed Snowden exposed). Reason Magazine explained the amendment as seeking to forbid the use of any funds to submit a surveillance request under Section 702's guidelines unless the requesting organization— the National Security Agency (NSA)— certifies that the surveillance is not "to acquire the communications of a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States, any acquisition of a communication as to which no participant is a person who is targeted pursuant to the authorized acquisition, or any acquisition of a communication known to be entirely domestic."
Translation: The purpose of Section 702 of FISA is intended to authorize warrantless secret surveillance of foreign targets of interest in other countries who may be plotting against the United States. In practice, we know that the NSA has been collecting significant amounts of domestic communications of American citizens, without warrants, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This was the surveillance that Edward Snowden helped expose, and we've been arguing over it ever since.

Despite repeatedly and loudly complaining that he and his aides had been illegally surveilled under FISA as a candidate, President Donald Trump has done nothing to actually restrain these surveillance powers. Last year, given the opportunity to rethink the limits of Section 702 when it was up for renewal, Congress and Trump instead expanded its authority to snoop on Americans.

So this year, Amash and Lofgren embarked on a new effort to stop the NSA from secretly collecting Americans' communications. Amash spoke passionately in defense of his amendment on the House floor [Tuesday] evening:
We can see what's wrong with Washington right here. We have Republicans for months saying "We're worried about FISA abuse. FISA's out of control!" Here we are trying to limit FISA and they're running against it. They're saying "No, we can't limit FISA!" Democrats say, "We want to hold the president in check. Executive power is out of control." We have an amendment to hold the president in check. This is our time to stand up for the American people. I'm sick of going home and telling them that neither side wanted to defend their rights.
But it was not to be. The amendment got all of 10 minutes of debate and was defeated.
So… which team would you want to be on? One one side you have Barbara Lee (D-CA), AOC (D-NY), Justin Amash (R-MI), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Pramila Payapal (D-WA), Katie Porter (D-CA), Joe Kennedy III (D-MA), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), David Cicilline (D-RI), Deb Haaland (D-NM), Jamie Raskin (D-MA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY)… And on the other side you have Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Devin Nunes (R-CA),  Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ), Steve King (R-IA), Fred Upton (R-MI), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL), Liz Cheney (R-WY), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Sean Duffy (R-WI), Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), David Scott (Blue Dog-GA), Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL), Ron Kind (new Dem-WI), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Tom O’Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), Jefferson Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ), Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)…


I reached out to some Democrats who firmly believe in the concept of privacy from unreasonable searches. Remember Tim Canova, a constitutional lawyer from Florida who made a couple of spirited runs against Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of the New Dems who backs unwarranted spying on American citizens. Tim reminded me that he had “long opposed the federal government’s warrantless mass surveillance program… Wasserman Schultz has argued that federal agencies need these tools to protect us from terrorists, from those who would collude with foreign enemies, rig our elections, and destroy our system of government. It’s therefore ironic that Wasserman Schultz and her own electronic communications are now of interest to the U.S. Justice Department and various federal prosecutors. Most notable are investigations into the origins of the unverified and salacious Christopher Steele dossier and how it was used in 2016 to lie to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) court to spy on the Trump campaign. It turns out that Wasserman Schultz had her Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid millions of dollars for the dirty dossier, with payments ultimately going to Steele, a former foreign Intelligence agent, and his sources inside Russian intelligence circles. As the New York Times reported, the Russians may have fed Steele the most outlandish lies about Trump as part of a Kremlin disinformation program to destabilize our political system. Paying foreigners to influence the U.S. presidential election are serious violations of federal campaign finance law. It also turns out that Wasserman Schultz laundered these payments to Steele and the others through Fusion GPS, a crony, and a high powered law firm, Perkins Coie. That’s money laundering to conceal the underlying felonies. Federal prosecutors likely have plenty of probable cause to obtain a FISA warrant to inspect Wasserman Schultz’s electronic communications from 2016. Meanwhile, Wasserman Schultz keeps voting in the House to allow federal mass surveillance without warrants. If there’s any karmic justice in this world, it won’t be warrantless mass surveillance that catches up with Wasserman Schultz, but a FISA warrant based on verified information and probable cause. RussiaGate conspiracy mongering has been great for cable TV ratings and has allowed criminal Democrats like Wasserman Schultz to distract attention from their own crimes. It is quickly proving to be a failing strategy against Donald Trump. All thanks to Dirty Debbie.”

Jon Hoadley is a state Rep running for the congressional seat held by Trump enabler Fred Upton. His position wasn’t much like Canova’s but wound up with a similar conclusion. “Voters in Southwest Michigan were disappointed to learn their 16-term congressman, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), once again landed on the wrong side of history by voting against the Lofgren-Amash amendment. This amendment would have closed the legal loopholes that enable mass government surveillance on private citizens. As a state representative, I've introduced legislation to ensure privacy for broadband users and worked to advance net neutrality. And when we turn Michigan's Sixth District blue next November, I'll vote to end mass government spying on citizens and to hold corporations accountable for abusing consumer data.

Dr. Michael Owens, a national security expert running for Congress against craven Blue Dog David Scott in a suburban district southwest of Atlanta told me that it’s unfortunate that Scott “again voted with Republicans and the Trump Administration to continue to allow the government to collect Americans' personal, private communications without a warrant. This is the second time that David Scott has voted for the warrantless collection of Americans' data that was installed hastily after 911 by President Bush as part of the overreaching Patriot Act. We must be clear, with David Scott's help, the Republicans in the House were successful in voting against the basic freedoms that every American is granted under the Fourth Amendment, he continues to be complicit in the government's mass collections of data that potentially puts  every American citizen at risk to cyber attacks and the potential exposure of any American citizen's most private information. Lastly, with this vote Congressman Scott continues to support Trump by allowing the biased targeting of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants… I support this amendment and would’ve stood with the many progressive and decisive Democrats who voted yes. Under this amendment the government would have basic safeguards to allow the government to continue using Section 702 for its stated purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. But just as important, it would’ve stopped the abuse of the Constitution's 4th amendment with the government’s warrantless collection of Americans’ communications under FISA. This amendment would’ve also helped to reduce the billions of pieces of information that are being collected, indexed and searched against the will of the American people.”




Another reactionary Blue Dog who opposed the bipartisan amendment was Tom O’Halleran (AZ), a “former” Republican. And, like Scott, he has a strong progressive primary opponent— Eva Putzova. “The U.S. government can continue to read its citizens’ emails and text messages and surveil their internet activity Russian-style, “ she told me after the vote. “This is a tactic used to control the citizenry by totalitarian regimes and I know that, because I grew up under one of those regimes. Selling out the freedom of our people is unacceptable whether it’s done on partisan basis or not. In this case, both Republicans and Democrats showed a total disregard for personal liberties and failed their constituents.”

Dary Rezvani is the Fresno-area progressive taking on Devin Nunes (R-CA), a huge proponent of illegal domestic surveillance, isn’t happy that his own congressman is leading this charge. “The topic of surveillance,” he told me, “especially as it relates to this topic has always fascinated me for multiple reasons. The first being that Republicans try to sell themselves as the anti-big government party yet they have continually fueled and proposed legislation that allows for government overreach. As a child of 9/11, I remember vividly the arguments over the Patriot Act. At the time I thought ‘if you aren't doing anything wrong, what is the difference?’ Now, being a bit older and a bit wiser, I realize that this has little to do with protecting the public and everything to do with monitoring citizens that might be a ‘problem’ for the status quo. Privacy is a hot topic especially lately. It took a minute but the general population is starting to realize how valuable data is, specifically personal data. As our privacy becomes less and less private, the ability to organize and collectively voice our opinions against injustice becomes more and more difficult. Look at countries like China and Russia, where besides the exception of a couple of cases, the ability to protest is almost impossible. Once again, there’s something wrong with the rhetoric here. America is supposed to be the land of the free. That is what I was taught in school, my mom was taught in school and so on. The problem once again comes back to America's inability to critically think for themselves and ultimately question the government. However, when has there been a time in our history that you could openly question the government without your patriotism coming into question? As Americans, our information should be ours and ours alone. If we have created a society that the government has to monitor every letter we type, we have failed so far beyond belief that no amount on monitoring that can save it.”

Wendy Reed ran against Kevin McCarthy twice, without any help from her own party either time. Yesterday she told me that she would have gladly voted for the amendment and that fact “that McCarthy voted against it shows why he is hated by progressives and Freedom Caucus alike; he is a sellout corporatist, owing his allegiance only to money.”

Discussing this vote with Florida Democrat Alan Grayson, he told me that "After the Snowden revelations, an independent study showed that mass spying had not caught a single terrorist– although it had allowed NSA agents to spy on their girlfriends. 1984 just came a few years late. Big Brother is, indeed, watching you." 


Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 04, 2017

Dan Lipinski, One Of The 3 Blue Dogs Who Helped Kevin McCarthy Pass An Anti-Choice Bill Yesterday

>


Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 36, Trent Franks' so-called "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." It passed 237-189, every Republican but Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) and Charlie Dent (R-PA) voting YES, and every Democrat except 3 far right Blue Dogs voting NO:
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
The bill would make abortion after 20 weeks illegal in every state-- so not just red hellholes like Mississippi, Alabama and Missouri, but normal states where normal people live. The basis for the bill is a GOP fairytale that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, whose entire career going back to his days in the state legislature have been about disadvantaging the voiceless, the vulnerable, and the marginalized claims this bill "will protect the voiceless, the vulnerable, and the marginalized. It will protect those children who science has proven can feel pain."

But how does a political party which is at war with Science make that kind of a determination? Science sure doesn't agree. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said it considers the case to be closed as to whether a fetus can feel pain at that stage in development. "The science shows that based on gestational age, the fetus is not capable of feeling pain until the third trimester," said Kate Connors, a spokesperson for ACOG. The third trimester begins at about 27 weeks of pregnancy."

Wendy Reed is the progressive Democrat running for the Central Valley congressional seat McCarthy operates out of. With no help whatsoever from the DCCC or the Democratic Party, she is trying to hold McCarthy accountable for his terrible "leadership."



"Kevin McCarthy puts Micah Pickering's face on the politics of abortion, and should be ashamed of himself for using that charming child for political purposes. It is ironic that Kevin advocates medical care for extremely premature babies like Micah while voting to deny basic medical for 9 million children under CHIP and millions of other American children. But he can assert such hypocrisy because his bill has nothing to do with premature births or health care. Kevin's sole purpose is to exempt states from federal protection of safe and legal abortion. He says that 'thousands are killed at the age Micah was born' but that is simply untrue. Estimates are between 100 to 600 abortions performed after 20 weeks gestation, primarily due to fetal abnormality or death, or risk of maternal death. In truth, Kevin has no concept of the pain that families feel in these tragic situations, and he appears to have no concept of the pain his legislative and budgetary agenda are causing millions of Americans and American children to feel every day. Kevin has no right to talk about the 'millions of Micahs' who deserve our love. Yes, Kevin, there are millions of American children who deserve your love and care through legislation and budgeting, so where is your heart?"

Meanwhile, the DCCC doesn't just fully support the anti-Choice Blue Dogs in the House caucus, Lujan and Pelosi have publicly announced that they are working to recruit more Blue Dogs to run for Congress as Democrats. As it turns out, the DCCC is financing reactionaries with their Republican ideas in districts where Bernie beat Hillary in the primaries. Remember this when the DCCC asks you for money to help save Choice.

Most of the members of Congress I spoke to yesterday about the bill said something like what Carol Shea-Porter told her New Hampshire constituents about why she opposed the bill: "This legislation is dangerous to the rights, health, and safety of American women. This bill attempts to put the government between women and their doctor based on inaccurate and unscientific claims. Pregnancy is usually a joyful time, but for some families it poses dangerous health risks and extremely difficult decisions that should be made between a woman, her doctor, and her loved ones, not politicians."

Goal ThermometerChicago hack Dan Lipinski is one of the only consistently bad Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party with an effective challenger for 2018. Marie Newman has built a strong grassroots campaign and she isn't letting Lipinski get away with anything. This morning she informed IL-03 voters about Lipinski's latest anti-choice vote. Her campaign was quick to remind anyone who hadn't read the news that Lipinski voted to ban a woman's right to an abortion if the fetus she is carrying has reached 20 weeks gestation. She told them that he "does not understand the numerous studies that show that some women who are raped cannot seek help without further being traumatized. Putting a woman who already has been victimized in a position that requires her to jump through hoops before she can have a doctor provide treatment further victimizes her. This is not fair to any woman survivor. The women in our district won't stand for this and I will always stand with and for them." If you'd like to help Marie replace a Republican with a "D" next to his name on the ballot, please click on the thermometer on the right and consider making a contribution.

Meanwhile, of course, one of the Republican hypocrites who voted for the bill without a second thought, anti-Choice nut Tim Murphy (R-PA) told his mistress to go get an abortion after he impregnated her. Shannon Edwards, a forensic psychologist in Pittsburgh with whom the congressman admitted last month to having a relationship, texted him,"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options." There are 3 Democrats trying to win the nomination to run against Murphy in the prohibitively red (PVI is R+11) district in the southwest corner of the state-- Mike Crossey, Pam Iovino and Robert Solomon.


UPDATE: Bye-Bye Tim Murphy

After a spanking from Paul Ryan today in Ryan's office, Murphy announced he's retiring, possibly to spend more time with his wife and/or his mistress.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Is It OK To Campaign For Congress On "Medicare-For-All?"

>


The other day I was talking with a first-time Democratic candidate who has a bit of a reputation as a centrist, although he insist-- at least to me-- that he's a progressive. I'm not persuaded. He says he's kind of, sort of good with Medicare-For-All but there's no way he'd say he's going to co-sponsor John Conyers Medicare-For-All bill. He claims the district isn't ready for that yet and maybe he can lead them in that direction and maybe we can go to it incrementally. I do like one argument he makes, which I find refreshingly sincere: he says he doesn't want to pivot after he wins the primary and that whatever he backs now-- to appeal to Democratic audiences-- is exactly what he wants to say to general election audiences. His swingy red district is one of those districts where independents determine who goes to Congress.

Thursday L.A. Times reporter Sarah Wire posted a provocative piece about messaging: How does a progressive Democrat try to unseat a Republican? Step one: Don't talk about single-payer healthcare. And the piece was about a Blue America-endorsed candidate, Katie Hill. Katie was "sitting around a kitchen table with a local activist group last spring when one of the attendees asked her a question: Will she have to 'soft pedal' her stance on any issues to unseat Republican Rep. Steve Knight in the 25th District?"
The progressive Democrat started to answer, then paused to ask a person livestreaming the meeting on Facebook: “This isn’t going to be something that I’m going to be blasted all over Facebook for, right?”

After getting assurances that the video would only be available to a private group, Hill said one of the issues she can’t discuss directly is single-payer healthcare.

"I shouldn't go into the district and talk about single-payer, right? Like, that word by itself is going to be something that just immediately turns off a lot of people," Hill said. "But, if I talk about how we need to make sure that everybody has access to healthcare and that it's affordable for everybody and how having a government option [is needed] at the very least, that is something people can really get behind. It's more about the way we talk about things than being very far apart on issues."

The video, which was posted online to the storage site Dropbox and shared with the Los Angeles Times this week, shows the delicate line some Democratic candidates are walking as the national party goes after the more than 30 seats it needs to win back control of the House. The idea of a single-payer healthcare system, in which the government pays for a base level of healthcare for all citizens, has been growing in popularity in party circles since it became a major policy plank in Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. But it remains a nonstarter for many conservatives, and is unlikely to catch on in a Republican-controlled Congress and White House.

The path to a House Democratic majority goes through the seven California Republican-held districts that backed Hillary Clinton in 2016. That includes places like the 25th District, where voters have sent Republicans to Congress for decades, but Democrats have a 3-percentage-point voter registration lead and voters there chose Clinton by nearly 7 percentage points in 2016.

Hill said in an interview that she believes the country will eventually have single-payer healthcare, but using the term puts off people in a district with a large number of conservative voters. Hill said she asked whether the video-- shot during a May 2 gathering for the liberal activist group Indivisible-- would be widely shared because talking to a liberal group is different than talking to the general public.

“Look, is it the best idea to be talking about the strategy for how we frame conversations? Probably I wouldn’t be advised that’s what I should say,” Hill said.

Hill has spoken publicly about her wish for every person to have healthcare, and paying out of pocket for her teenage brother’s drug addiction treatment. But she said achieving a single-payer healthcare system shouldn’t be prioritized over working for healthcare solutions in the interim, including practical fixes to the system that both sides can embrace.

“It comes down to having nuanced discussions,” Hill said. “As purple districts, we have the opportunity to say, ‘No, we can’t have these binary conversations.’”

Healthcare is expected to be a key issue in the 2018 contests.

Democrats are already lambasting GOP lawmakers, including Knight, for backing their party's House healthcare bill in May. Knight has said it was a tough vote, but he thinks it was the right bill to address changes needed to the Affordable Care Act, and he isn’t worried about Democrats using it against him.

At the same time, some have threatened to make support for single-payer healthcare a litmus test for Democrats. Our Revolution, a political group inspired by Sanders, threatened primary challenges this week against Democrats who aren’t vocal about it.

Former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, president of Our Revolution, told Politico, "We're not going to accept no more hemming and hawing. No more game playing. Make your stand."

Backers of single-payer healthcare in California are also trying to recall Democratic Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon because he shelved a bill to create a state system earlier this year.

But the National Republican Congressional Committee is trying to use single-payer healthcare against Democrats. Just last week, it went after another Democrat in the race against Knight, Bryan Caforio, over whether he supports a single-payer system. He has said for months that he does, although Caforio, like Hill, doesn’t use the phrase. He’s more likely to refer to “Medicare for all.”

“This is a universal human rights issue and I’m going to talk about that in the district,” Caforio said.

Caforio lost to Knight in 2016 by 6 percentage points. Three other Democrats have announced challenges, but Caforio and Hill have an early fundraising lead.
DCCC messaging gurus-- they literally only hire morons-- insist that candidates not campaign on "Medicare-For-All." So I asked some of the candidates who Blue America has endorsed and some of the ones we are currently vetting. The question, in fact, is part of the vetting process. We started with Katie. She told me she hasn't gotten any backlash, "Anyone who actually reads the article as opposed to just the headline knows that my comment was about messaging only. And most people who are paying attention have heard me over and over again talk about Medicare for all so they know it's something taken out of context in an attempt to make me look bad. My mistake was asking if the video was going to be shared (or thinking for a second that it wouldn't be). Everything else I said is consistent with what I have said everywhere throughout this campaign, both in public and in private."

I caught up with Randy Bryce just as he was flying back to Wisconsin from having given the keynote speech at Netroots Nation. He reminded me that he talks about Medicare-For-All-- and using that phrase-- in virtually every speech he gives. Then I asked a go-to progressive I know I can always trust to give me an unadulterated progressive perspective, Hawaii state legislator Kaniela Ing. Here's what he told me:
The consultant class is obsessed with having candidates try to sound like America's most popular politician while somehow not upsetting their donors. Unfortunately for them, authenticity matters, and voters are smarter than they think.

A silver tsunami of aging boomers is approaching, and single-payer, Medicare-for-all is America's only sensible and sustainable healthcare solution. Anything short will continue to allow big-pharma, corporate hospitals, and insurance companies to exploit the sick and their cash-strapped families into paying way too much for needed services. This in turn could have devastating effects for our overall economy.

Democrats know that healthcare is a human right. If you want to reach Republicans, add that Medicare is the most efficient system we got, and that Medicare-for-all will save taxpayers $17 trillion. We have facts on our side and shouldn't run from them.

Voters in both parties recognize that the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies, and corporate hospitals have too much power. The People's trust will go to the party or set of candidates willing to take them on.
Wendy Reed is running in a much redder district than Katie's though they both share part of the Antelope Valley in southern California. Wendy's opponent is the Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and she told us that she disagrees "that talking about single-payer is a campaign no-no, totally disagree. As candidates, we must talk with voters about good policy, and provide the breadth and depth of information on these issues that might not be provided on mainstream media. Moreover, the only thing that wins elections is integrity. We must never shy away from our commitment to good policy. Health care is a human right and Medicare For All will save us all money. It is good policy. Of course we should have these discussions with those we hope to represent."

Two Blue America-endorsed candidates in Orange County, Doug Applegate and Sam Jammal, progressives opposing, respectively, GOP entrenched incumbents Darrell Issa and Ed Royce. Doug pointed out that "I’ve argued and my platform has always fought for single payer Medicare-for-All. That’s why I’m so proud to have earned the National Nurses United endorsement, and I’ll always have their back." Sam Jammal said simply, "I strongly support Medicare for All, because (1) I believe health care is a human right; and (2) Medicare works and we should invest in what works. Try finding a senior who hates their Medicare and wishes to get rid of their Medicare; that person doesn't exist. As a former business executive, you invest in what works and scale it. Government should be doing the same when it comes to health care. People want quality, affordability and access  Medicare provides all of this for our seniors, which is why we need to protect it and expand it. Additionally, we aren't talking enough about out of pocket costs and how they are crippling our families. This is why I will campaign on universal health care and, in particular, Medicare for All because its the best approach for lowering health care costs. Voters want solutions that will work for them, not millionaires or special interest. My campaign is about voters in my community and finding solutions that will improve their lives. This is why I will continue to campaign on Medicare for All."

Kia Hamadanchy is running for the Orange County seat occupied by Trump pawn Mimi Waters. A young attorney who once worked for Sherrod Brown in Washington, he values clarity and honesty and abhors the kind of murky approach that leaves voters trying to sift through the verbiage to understand where a candidate really is. "When I talked about healthcare," he told us, "I use the terms single payer and Medicare-for-All, because I want to make it clear to everyone as to what kind of healthcare system I believe we need in this country and to make clear then when I'm elected to Congress I will sign on as a co-sponsor of John Conyers' Medicare-for-all bill. And its also important that people know what exactly we stand for as a party and we aren't just against Donald Trump. Mimi Walters voted for a bill that would take healthcare away from 22 million people and she needs to be held accountable for that vote. But at the same time there are real issues with healthcare in this country and its important to demonstrate to the people of Orange County that we as a party have solutions to address these issues."

We also spoke to an Orange County candidate who we haven't endorsed yet but is being looking at closely. Harley Rouda was a Republican, then an independent and now he's a Democrat. Our experience with "ex"-Republicans is horrible. They get into Congress and then revert to their old conservative ways and prove to be more Republican than Democrat. All feel most comfortable joining the Blue Dogs and New Dems. Look at Charlie Crist (FL), Patrick Murphy (FL) and Tom O'Halleran (AZ)-- "ex"-Republicans with horrible voting records on core Democratic issues across the board. HOWEVER, once in a very blue moon we find an Elizabeth Warren, once a Republican who truly saw the light and did not convert for opportunistic career calculations. Is Rouda more like Elizabeth Warren or more like Charlie Crist? He says so. That's what we have to figure out as he runs for the seat currently occupied with Putin-prone GOP nut Dana Rohrabcher. His statement on healthcare was clear and straight-forward: "I support Universal Healthcare across the United States and the development of a Medicare-for-all system. It’s the right thing to do-- and it’s also the smart thing to do. There are 40 industrialized, developed nations in the world. Of these 40 countries, 39 have Universal Healthcare. Only one does not. The United States of America. The United States spends almost 19% of its annual GDP on healthcare insurance, and healthcare needs. That is 2.5 TRILLION dollars a year! The other 39 industrialized countries that do have universal healthcare spend around 10% of their annual GDP on healthcare expenses. These countries are providing better healthcare services to their citizens-- and at half the cost. Something is just not adding up in America. In addition, healthcare expenses are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States and a leading cause of homelessness. This is why I support Universal Healthcare across the United States and a single-payer system. Developing a Medicare-for-all system is right for the American people-- and right for the American economy.


We spoke to three Blue America-backed candidates in Illinois, Marie Newman who is primarying anti-healthcare Blue Dog Dan Lipinski; Geoff Petzel who is taking on Trump/Ryan rubber-stamp Peter Roskam; and Dr. David Gill in the central part of the state, who's challenging another rubber-stamp, Rodney Davis. Marie reminded us that she uses "Medicare for all" everywhere. "I also use say: 'Medicare for all is the most logical way to achieve single payer for now.' This is not new. I also say that 65-70 percent of the country wants single payer. I believe in single payer and now, most of the country does too."




Pretzel was just as clear, even if his response was more involved. "Personally I agree with Our Revolution. Dems who don't publicly support single payer should get a primary challenge. I strongly support single payer, have since I ran in 2011, and proudly show my battle scars for taking that stance. Because I support single payer I was not endorsed by local media in 2011. In a bigger picture, Dems lack of vocal support for single payer is my biggest personal issue with the party. Just the other day I had a serious discussion about running as an independent instead of a Democrat because the party isn't pushing progressive policy positions like they should. The reason I'm not running as an independent, other than the prohibitive ballot requirements in Illinois, is that I believe we need to re-set the Democratic party and place it back on a track that supports progressive ideas proudly and loudly. [Democrats who] fear to proudly promote single payer makes me believe they're not real progressive and represent the status quo we have been served by the DCCC over and over again."

Goal ThermometerDr. Gill was reluctant to offer advice to other candidates-- but never reluctant to talk loudly and clearly about what he believes in. "As an individual who hasn't yet won a general election, far be it from me to try to advise other candidates. But I have had some relative success: I lost in IL-13 by only 0.3%, compared to other Democrats who have lost here by 18 to 20%. And I think the most important part of my ability to appeal to people across the political spectrum, even those who disagree with one or more of my progressive positions, is the fact that I am genuine. I simply say what I believe-- I don't try to tailor my talk or be particularly nuanced. I've been a physician for 29 years and I've been a member of Physicians for a National Health Program for 25 years, and I'm sick and tired of watching the vast majority of Americans get ripped off by a for-profit private health insurance industry that doesn't provide them with one iota of health care or actually give a damn about their well-being. I use that type of language while also incorporating the terms 'single payer' and 'improved Medicare for all', and I make it clear that I'm running because I ACTUALLY CARE about their well-being. The same caring instinct that drove me into a career in medicine is what drives my desire to be a leader in Congress. Each candidate has a unique set of circumstances, but I think that demonstrating a passion is ultimately even more important than the particular words that we put forth."

The progressive running in the Oklahoma City district (OK-05, where Trump beat Hillary 53.2% to 39.8%) is Tom Guild, who Blue America has endorsed. "A single payer Medicare-for-All health care system," he told us, "ensures that every American will have essential health care coverage. Since health care is a right and not a luxury, it is tragic that the United States is the only major world class nation without a health care system that covers everyone. Our system is one of the most expensive in the world, yet isn’t one that enjoys the best health care outcomes for its citizens. The current system leaves millions without coverage every year. Australia, Canada, and Great Britain all have national health care plans, that are considered three of the best health care systems in the world. The cost of health care is much higher in the U.S. than in any of these three western democracies. Single payer cuts paperwork and takes the profit motive of current insurance mega corporations out of the equation. It also reins in the huge profits and sky high prices of prescription drugs manufactured by Big Pharma. If we can cover every American for a lower cost, it makes sense to do so. We can use the trillions saved by not fighting the next expensive and endless wars and put that savings towards providing universal health care for our fellow Americans. For now, it makes sense to shore up the Affordable Care Act, and strengthen the individual market. Adding a public option would go a long way towards making the ACA function at a higher level. However, certain politicians have made a living and guaranteed their elections and re-elections recently by demonizing what they distastefully refer to as Obamacare. It is unlikely that they can get beyond their strong dislike or even hatred of anything named after former President Barack Obama, and take a mend it, don’t end it approach. If so, their inability to move forward hastens the day when America will join the rest of the world and adopt a single payer universal coverage Medicare-for-All system. When we have a majority of progressives in the U.S. House and Senate, and a new president we can make single payer a reality. As  the simple prayer goes, God grant me patience, and please hurry!"

South of Oklahoma City is Texas and one of the districts worth targeting is the Austin-San Antonio corridor seat held by crackpot science denier Lamar Smith. The progressive running against him-- likely to be Blue America's next endorsee-- is Derrick Crowe. He told us "I support Medicare For All in virtually every speech, in front of every audience. It's in our literature and is one of our main platform planks. Democrats shouldn't shy away from it for any reason. Most Americans think our country should make sure everyone has health care coverage, and among those under 30, a stunning 89 percent support that statement, with 66 percent of those young people saying they want a single national government program. Nearly two-thirds of Americans have a positive reaction to the term, 'Medicare For All.' If Republicans want to try to attack you for supporting Medicare For All in public, hand them a microphone, because we'll take their seats. Beyond the polling, it's just simply time for America to get back into a leadership role on health care. We spend more money on health care and have worse outcomes than virtually any other well-developed nation. Of the 35 countries in the OECD, we rank 27th in life expectancy, despite spending the most on health care-- so for those worried about the cost of a single-payer system, I'd challenge them to prove the value of a private system. Tell me why we should die earlier so insurance CEOs and pharma bosses can get richer off our misery."

Paul Perry is one of the Democrats running in a crowded primary in the Philly 'burbs in the hope of running against Pat Meehan. "Yes," he said, "I use Medicare for All. There's still plenty of nuance in terms of process that progressives (and folks on all sides really) can work with even when we use that term. It's about how we get there. Medicare for All is an identifiable program that successfully provides healthcare already for millions of Americans, so expanding it to cover more just plain makes sense to a lot of folks. I don't think we should be compromising on our destination which is a system that truly covers every single person in this country affordably and effectively. But the nuance on how we get there, the process, is fine. It'll of course be a phased approach."

Running in the same district is state Senator Daylin Leach who calls for Medicare for all in his platform and agrees that the way you do that successfully is embrace it openly, and defend it aggressively. "Health care," he told us, "is a basic human right. And a 'right' is something you are born with and keep until you shuffle off this mortal coil. The only way to guarantee that right is with a universal health-care system that can never be taken away from you. Medicare for all does that. Currently, we spend 25% of every health care dollar on insurance company profits. We should instead use that money to improve access to care and quality of care. I will fight to make sure that happens."

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 02, 2017

Hey, Hey! Ho, Ho! Ben Ray Lujan's Got To Go!

>


I've been mad at the DCCC since Pelosi named Rahm Emanuel chairman in 2005. It's barely over a decade and other people are starting to catch on as well. The latest shit from this assholes: Pelosi and Ben Gay Lujan now admit the DCCC recruits and funds Blue Dogs and anti-Choice freaks and passes them off on unsuspecting Democratic voters as normal Democrats, Monday. Becca Andrews, reporting for Mother Jones used the DCCC p.r. shop's deceitfully-crafted messaging: "The Democrats will not withhold financial support from candidates who oppose abortion, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) chair Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM)." Oh... "not withhold?" As if they ever did! Conservatives always get the biggest share of DCCC money.


Democratic party leaders, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have also said the Democratic party should not draw a hard line when it comes to abortion. In June, DNC chair Tom Perez met with Democrats for Life of America who demanded that abortion not be a “litmus test” of the party. The 2016 Democratic platform stated that the party believed “unequivocally” that “every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion.”

At a time when the Democratic party is searching for a coherent identity and program after its resounding defeat in 2016, the debate over whether the party openly supports abortion rights will likely continue to heat up as the 2018 races loom.

“Throwing weight behind anti-choice candidates is bad politics that will lead to worse policy,” Mitchell Stille, who oversees campaigns for NARAL Pro-Choice America, told The Hill. “The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.”
I asked a couple dozen incumbents and some 2018 candidates what they think of the new controversy Ben Ray has blindly and stupidly stumbled into. I mean can you imagine how fast Ryan would fire NRCC chairman Steve Stivers if he announced they are going to start recruiting and funding progressive pro-Choice candidates? The first coherent response I got was Paul Perry, a progressive Democrat running for the PA-07 seat in the Philly suburbs currently held by Pat Meehan (R):
Yesterday, the DCCC stated publicly that it would compromise women’s reproductive freedom in a misguided attempt to win elections. This is dangerous nonsense. A woman’s right to bodily autonomy is not a bargaining chip; it is a fundamental part of what should be every Democrat’s commitment to economic justice and healthcare for all.

Therefore, in order to transform words into actionable solidarity, I am using my resources to support the Women’s Medical Fund, an organization that provides financial assistance to economically vulnerable women seeking reproductive care in Philadelphia, Montgomery, Chester, Delaware, and Bucks counties-- and I am encouraging my supporters to do the same. If elected to Congress, I'll ensure that programs like this have the necessary funding and support to provide full access to quality care for all women.

Because access to quality, affordable care for women should not depend on their financial circumstances nor the whims of party leaders. Period.

#TrustWomen #WeWon’tGoBack
Mary Ellen Balchunis was the Democratic candidate for PA-07 last cycle and the DCCC sabotaged her race. Sh'e thinking about running again next year. This morning she told me that "I understand supporting candidates crossing the finish line in the primary. If I had the support of the DCCC after my huge primary victory, I believe that I could have gone much further. However, I disagree with supporting candidates who win the primary and do not support the Democratic platform. As a Political Scientist, I believe if the DCCC goes through with this, you will see numerous women and Progressive men supporting Independent candidates. The DCCC may be giving several victories to Independents; and if the Independents don't win, the DCCC will be giving the election to the Republicans. In either case, the Republicans will maintain their majority. Haven't we learned anything from the 2016 election? The people want candidates who help them with jobs, wages, healthcare and education. It is why Sen.Sanders had such 'huge' support!"

The next post to come in was-- surprise, surprise-- from a woman candidate, Katie Hill, running against GOP crackpot and Trump rubber-stamp Steve Knight in CA-25, an evenly split district leaning blue.
I have spent my whole life in one of those long-held Republican districts that Democrats have to flip next year in order to get back a majority in the House. A Republican has been in the seat for 42 out of the last 50 years. The instinct among Democrats at the national level that we need to be talking to people in those districts differently to be able to win them over is absolutely correct. But that does not mean we should compromise or go backwards on some of our most fundamental values, including women's rights.

Many members of my community have strong religious ties that affect their views on abortion. However, the vast majority of them-- including members of my immediate family-- acknowledge that, while they may not agree with a woman's choice to have an abortion, it is not their place or the government's place to get involved in one of the hardest decisions a woman will ever make in her life. They also almost universally agree, in my experience, that the best way to prevent abortions (and/or the devastating cycle of kids entering the foster care system) is by preventing unplanned pregnancies. So education and access to birth control are absolutely key in that. There is national polling and research that shows that 80% of people support a woman's right to choose, if not morally, then at least from the perspective that it's not a decision that the government can be making for her. We need to be appealing to that overwhelming majority of people-- not the 20% or less who want to strip away the rights we've worked so hard to protect.

A woman's right to choose is something that our party, and progressives in general, have been fighting to earn and to protect for generations. We cannot give that up because of a mistaken belief that this is somehow the way we will win over conservative voters, and more conservative-leaning districts. As a woman, and someone who fundamentally understands the culture and the dynamics of purple districts, I can say with utter confidence that this is the wrong tactic.
The best Democrat running in IL-13, David Gill, is a stalwart, no-nonsense progressive. I knew the DCCC announcement would sound unpleasantly familiar to him. Last night a good feminist Democrat was complaining on twitter that "liberal men" were willing to throw women under the bus and back Lujan on this. Well, not any of the liberal men I know! Dr. Gill sure had a different perspective than that too! "I would have no way of knowing what the DCCC is doing all around the country," he told us, "but I am intimately aware of their actions here in IL-13. I lost this seat in 2012 by three-tenths of ONE point (with the handicap that year of having a liberal independent on the ballot who was expressing all the same views as myself), after defeating the moderate DCCC-backed candidate in the primary (despite being outspent 5 to 1). Subsequent Democrats have lost the seat by 50 to 60 times as much as I lost it by, and Senator Durbin lost in this district by 20 times as much as I lost it by. But in spite of the fact that I have so vastly outperformed other Democratic candidates, I am unable to interest the DCCC in getting behind my 2018 campaign. I suspect that they do not like the fact that some of the main planks in my platform are driven by my 25 year membership in Physicians for a National Health Program (a leading single-payer advocacy group) and my 20 year membership in Physicians for Reproductive Choice. I also speak frequently and passionately about the need for true campaign-finance reform, and the need to end the corporate ownership of our politics and government. These are the issues which have resulted in my relative success here in the district, and yet these same issues seem to keep the DCCC from embracing my campaign. There will not be a liberal independent protecting the Republican who squeaked by me in 2012 this time around (Illinois' bizarre ballot access laws only make that a realistic possibility in years that end in a '2'), so I intend to make up that 0.3% next year and get to Congress, whether the DCCC likes it or not. Of course, first I will have to defeat another moderate DCCC-backed candidate in the Democratic primary next March, a candidate who has not expressed any public support for single-payer or tuition-free public universities or a $15 per hour minimum wage."

Goal ThermometerDoug Applegate, a former Marine Corp colonel and not someone who gets pushed around by political hacks told us that "the DCCC sets it's own policies and I set the policies for my campaign. Supporting women's hard-won right to choice is a core value of mine and-- a value shared by the majority of San Diego and Orange County voters-- and Beltway strategists aren't the folks I'm looking to for advise on the subject. Women who live in CA-49 are." Doug is likely to replace anti-Choice fanatic Darrell Issa in Congress. Up the road a bit Wendy Reed is running for a deep red seat held by Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. She's another candidate unenthusiastic about the DCCC's latest move. "Ben Ray Lujan's willingness to toss off a Constitutionally protected right of women for political expediency exemplifies the rotting of DCCC strategy," she told us. "Lujan seems to have passed his expiration date, and I stand with Tom Perez and Howard Dean on this. Only principles, platform integrity, and informed conversation will win elections in 2018."

Tom Guild is a progressive Democrat in exactly the kind of "red state," Oklahoma, where the DCCC wants to run anti-Choice Blue Dogs. Of course, they're wrong... and are unlikely to back Tom. He told us that "The progressive coalition is made up of many disparate interests. Environmentalists are often primarily concerned with climate change and the future of our planet. Progressive populists may be most concerned with raising the minimum wage, Wall Street Reform, and the reduction of college student loan debt. Women’s health issues are at the forefront of the concerns of many women and men in the progressive movement. Seniors may emphasize increasing Social Security benefits and protecting Medicare from being reduced to worthless vouchers, leaving older Americans without meaningful affordable health care. There is an abundance of other groups constituting the progressive movement and each has issues crucial to them. To undercut women’s health is offensive and is no more acceptable than the undermining of other values important to diverse elements of our movement. We need candidates who run the gamut and mutually support our progressive allies on issues essential to them. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. so eloquently said, injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. We must support our coalition partner’s progressive causes, along with our own. Anti-Choice=Anti-Progressive. Together we win, and as Abe Lincoln, also eloquently, opined, a house divided against itself cannot stand."

Harley Rouda is one of the 40 or so Democrats running for GOP-held seats in Orange County. He wants to replace Dana Rohrabacher, an anti-Choice nut. "A woman's right to choose is non-negotiable. We can compromise on many things, but not on a woman's right to autonomy over her own body. I’m in complete agreement with 70% of Americans who, regardless of their personal feelings on abortion, recognize it is a woman’s fundamental right to control her reproductive decisions and that government has no place in deciding for her. I’m disappointed that the Democratic Party won’t stand up without hesitation and in unanimity on this very important issue."

Another Orange County candidate, Andy Thorburn-- who is eager to replace Ed Royce-- jumped into the race yesterday. He told me that "I'm 100% pro-choice, and I believe that the government should not tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. I do not believe that the national party should actively recruit anti-choice candidates."

I asked a whole slew of Democrats in Congress. A few cursed out Pelosi and Lujan or told me off the record how angry they are and how divisive this is for the party-- but no one was willing to speak on the record except Bay Area progressive freshman Ro Khanna, who said simply and right to the point, "I believe being pro-choice is about gender equality and a core value. The DCCC should not support anti-choice candidates." BOOM!

Dotty Nygard is the progressive candidate taking on Jeff Denham in northern California. Again, clear and right to the point: "There is zero reason for our party to invest in fringe, anti-Choice candidates. Americans are tired of politicians who feel more compelled to regulate a woman's body than Wall Street corruption. 70% of Americans support safe access to abortion services, it's clear now more than ever that members of congress need to accurately represent our values and defend the health of Women."

And Derrick Crowe, the progressive in the Austin-San Antonio corridor district occupied by anti-Choice freak Lamar Smith sums up with all the candidates I spoke with said: "The DCCC should retract this statement, apologize to the women they were selling out when making this statement, and issue instead a new statement in which they make it clear that women's rights are not negotiable."

Rep. Kaniela Ing is the most progressive Democrat in the Hawaii legislature. He may not be running for federal office-- I hope he does-- but he's certainly paying close attention to what Pelosi and Lujan have been saying. I like his response a lot: "Embracing candidates who do not support every woman's right to choose is a huge step backward for our party, both morally and strategically. Roe v. Wade was nearly 45 years ago. So abortion should not be framed as a new fight between progressives and moderate Democrats. It's a pillar of what Democrats stand for. We can and should learn from Republicans, who have recently dominated American politics on every level by running unapologetically conservative candidates. People vote when they are inspired by candidates who stand for something. Our advantage is that more folks share progressive values and support our issues. We have dignity, fairness, and equality on our side. When we run on our values, and not from them, we win."

Want to watch some good ideas from the Democratic Party? This guy was speaking at Politicon in Pasadena this last weekend-- and there was nothing in what he had to say about taking away women's right to choice. One has to wonder why party leaders like Pelosi and Lujan aren't on the same page as this DNC spokesperson. They should be if they're serious about winning back Congress:




UPDATE: From Crowley's Opponent

Alexandria Ocasio is running or the Queens/Bronx seat occuried by the corrupt conservative Pelosi has picked to run the House Dems after she's gone, Joe Crowley. "The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world," she told us. "Women across this country already suffer in their access to healthcare. The very idea of the Democratic Party compromising on healthcare for half of Americans is tantamount to becoming the very Republicans we are trying to overturn. Our focus should be on expanding healthcare to all Americans, not taking it away."

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, April 28, 2017

Backing Trump's Tax Proposals Will Be Very Costly For Scores Of Republican Incumbents

>


One deduction that Trump's tax plan seeks to eviscerate just happens to focus primarily on blue states. If his plan passes, deductions of state and local taxes from federal income taxes will be eliminated. There are 7 states with no state income tax-- Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming-- and neither Tennessee nor New Hampshire taxes wages, so those 9 states won't be impacted at all. But states where state and local taxes are high and where the deductions are considerable include California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, Iowa, Wisconsin, Hawaii and Rhode Island.

This one hurts the upper-middle class worst of all, transferring $1.8 trillion in the next decade from their bank accounts into paying for tax cuts for multimillionaires, billionaires and corporations. Organizations representing state and local entities-- the National Governors Association, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the International City/County Management Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Council of State Governments-- are up in arms and make the case that the deduction should be preserved because it gives municipalities the flexibility to provide services to residents. "Any alterations to the deduction would upset the carefully balanced fiscal federalism that has existed since the permanent creation of the federal income tax over 100 years ago... We urge Congress to maintain the state and local deduction and the tax exemption for municipal bond interest. We will work with Congress to ensure that states and local governments have the tools we need to foster healthy, safe and vibrant communities."

California taxpayers will be probably hit the hardest. I haven't heard a peep out of California Republicans-- particularly not House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Are California Republicans going to stand up for the state's residents or for Trump? There are 14 Republicans in the 53-member California congressional delegation, 7 in electorally very vulnerable seats. This is the whole GOP state delegation and the percentage in parenthesis was what Trump won in each district:
Doug La Malfa (56.2%)
Tom McClintock (54.0%)
Paul Cook (54.7%)
Jeff Denham (45.5%)
David Valadao (39.7%)
Devin Nunes (52.1%)
Kevin McCarthy (58.1%)
Steve Knight (43.6%)
Ed Royce (42.9%)
Ken Calvert (53.4%)
Mimi Walters (44.4%)
Dana Rohrabacher (46.2%)
Darrell Issa (43.2%)
Duncan Hunter (54.6%)
We asked Wendy Reed, the Berniecrat running against Leader McCarthy in the Trumpiest district in the Golden State. "The desire to tax our taxes displays how clueless Trump and the Republican leadership are about American tax policy," she told us. "Regressive and just plain clueless." Just next door is the most endangered of all the state Republicans: Steve Knight. Katie Hill, who runs a non-profit for homeless vets is taking Knight on. She told us that "Getting rid of the state and local tax deduction will have a huge impact on middle class Californians-- most of the people in the 25th district. The Trump tax plan will also mean a tax increase for nearly 8 million families-- including the majority of single parent households. Surely Steve Knight won't support a tax increase for so many of his own constituents." So far Knight is keeping his opinion to himself.

And as we said, it's not just California where this transfer of wealth from the middle class to the billionaire class is going to cause real pain. Although Trump won with 49.7% in IL-13, a district that goes south from Bloomington and Champaign through Decatur and on into the outer suburbs north and east of St. Louis, GOP incumbent Rodney Davis is being targeted by Dr. David Gill who nearly beat Davis once before, 46.5% to 46.2%, just 1,002 votes. As long as the DCCC doesn't interfere, Gill is likely to beat Davis in 2018. He told us that "The plan proposed yesterday by the president is a huge gift to large corporations and the wealthiest Americans. These groups have already avoided paying their fair share of taxes for the past few decades, and this tax plan will only exacerbate that problem. And ironically, this plan would add trillions of dollars to our deficit, the same deficit which has been of such concern to conservatives. And we would lose the deduction for state and local taxes, resulting in a significant financial hit to many middle-class families. There is truly a need for significant tax reform in this country, but the plan proposed yesterday by the president moves us further in the wrong direction. The resulting loss of revenues will inevitably lead to further cuts in services, and the economic inequality which has brought so much pain to so many Americans over such a long period of time will expand at an even faster pace, resulting in a society with a small number of 'haves' and an overwhelming number of 'have-nots.'"

Another Illinois candidate endorsed by Blue America, Geoff Petzel is running in IL-06, a suburban district west of Chicago that Hillary won in November 50.2% to 43.2%. Ryan ally Peter Roskam represents the district now and Geoff hasn't be reluctant to point out how his and Ryan's agenda fly in the face of middle class families in the district. "The reality is that the 'tax plan,' he told us, "is just smoke and mirrors. It will never get done. If Democrats are even going to consider a compromise here, they should agree to go along with corporate tax rate cuts only in exchange for an increase in the tax rate for top income earners, closing all corporate tax loopholes and establishing a national $15/hour minimum wage. Even then, it may be giving too much away to corporate America. The reality is that the rich and big companies don't need a tax break. Trickle down economics don't work. The Trump plan will just make the rich richer and give big corporations more opportunity to take advantage of the consumers and workers who made them successful."

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, April 17, 2017

California Shaping Up To Be An Elephant's Grave Yard In The 2018 Midterms

>




The biggest Democratic delegation in Congress is, by far, from California. Of California's 53 House members, 39 are Democrats. Only 14 are Republicans and it's realistic to imagine that 14 being cut in half in the 2018 midterm cycle. Yesterday's L.A. Times noted without flinching that last month’s state registration report reveals an accelerated erosion of Republican strength. Their hold on those 14 districts is weak-- and that in not a single one do they hold a majority of voters. "There are a number of Republican incumbents who are sitting on ticking time bombs,” said Eric McGhee, a researcher at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.
The GOP’s statewide brand was once lustrous enough to carry six straight presidential elections, from 1968 to 1988. Compare that with last November, when President Trump lost half of the Republican congressional districts. In eight of the nominally Republican districts, Democratic voter registration has risen since 2013. How many of those saw an uptick in Republicans? Zero.

Two Republican pluralities have shrunk more than others in the last four years: those in districts represented by Reps. Steve Knight (R-Palmdale) and Mimi Walters (R-Irvine).

“There’s a long-term trend for Republican registration to be sagging,” McGhee said. The reason, as he and other researchers have found, is that young Californians coming into the political mainstream are registering either as Democrats or as unaffiliated “no party preference” voters. While some still occasionally choose GOP candidates, voters from days gone by-- the ones being replaced-- were reliable and registered as Republicans.

“That replacement process is just inexorably driving Republican numbers down,” McGhee said. “And it’s not clear where the bottom is.”

...[T]he Republican wall could crumble in the next round of political map drawing. In 2001, a bipartisan closed-door agreement gave 19 House seats to the GOP, a gerrymandering that sparked the creation of an independent redistricting commission. When the commission ignored political party registration in 2011, Republicans lost five House seats. The commission will again draw districts after the 2020 census. If demographics truly are destiny, the Grand Old Party has work to do. And fast.
If Californians have to wait for that for the Republican wall to crumble it will be due entirely to an incompetent and horribly corrupt DCCC, incompetence and corruption California Democrats are sick of and unwilling to take any longer. Some power was wrested from the hands of Nancy Pelosi whose grip on the DCCC has resulted in an erosion of control of dozens and dozens of House seats nationally since she started appointing DCCC chairs. Her selection of Rahm Emanuel was the literal death knell for any notion of an effective or even vaguely competent DCCC. It hasn't gotten any better with her subsequent appointments and this year rank-and-file Democrats in Congress forced her to accept some changes including the election of regional Vice Chairs. In California, Ted Lieu was unanimously elected. He's not part of that DCCC losing DNA and isn't tied to any of the Rahm Emanuel precepts that have made the committee the fail-safe insurance policy the Republicans needed for holding onto the House in perpetuity.


Local Democratic county parties have come to loath the DCCC and recognize it as an enemy of accomplishing anything. One county chairman told me this morning that "The DCCC keeps screwing up our congressional elections. We're sick of it and we're not going to let it happen anymore. Everybody has high hopes that Ted Lieu is going to approach this very differently from the way the DCCC has in the last decade." The chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party-- and probably next state party chair-- Eric Bauman, told Bay Area Democrats last week that the goofballs at the DCCC have been "carpetbagging [their loser candidates] into districts where we have perfectly good candidates of our own." And as state party chair, Bauman is committed, for example, to working with Lieu to do something the DCCC has adamantly refused to ever do-- recruiting a solid Democratic candidate to take on Devin Nunes in CA-22 (Fresno, Tulare, Visalia) and starting to build towards winning that seat.

No doubt Bauman had CA-25 in mind, where the DCCC drove a local candidate out of the congressional race, replaced him with some outsider, Brian Caforio, who proceeded to under-perform Hillary Clinton dramatically and lose-- badly lose-- what should have been a sure Democratic win. This cycle a local candidate, Katie Hill, is running for the nomination. She remarked that "Most of the Republican-held seats left in California are made up of a combination of suburban and rural communities, like those that make up my home district. These communities have strong identities, pride, and their own cultures. If we want to successfully reclaim these seats, it is imperative that we have candidates who have a deep understanding of their districts and are qualified based on life experience and community ties, not just their ability to fundraise. It doesn't matter how much money the Democrats throw at a race-- if you have a candidate that is perceived as an outsider, we will never win."

I ran into Ted Lieu the other day and he told me he's meeting with Wendy Reed this week, the Democrat taking on the longshot campaign to dislodge Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, something that is sure to displease Pelosi who doesn't believe in challenging Republican leaders electorally and has relentlessly kept the DCCC from ever doing so. McCarthy and Nunes have been exempt and have free-passes to reelection year after year after year. Those free-passes should be a thing of the past, at least in the region Ted Lieu is overseeing. When we reached Wendy today, she told us that she "understands the need for the DCCC to heavily invest in best-bet districts like CA-25, but districts like CA-23 next door deserve some party support as well. The Los Angeles and Tulare County portions of CA-23 voted 10 points more liberal than Kern, and deserve representation. Not only do people in such districts deserve candidates in a basic sense of representational democracy, but Democratic candidates market the Democratic Party and its values and ideals with our campaigns, we promote party membership, the party platform, and future votes. I have heard that our reorganized DNC/DCCC understands this and intends to help more districts, so I will continue to hope and advocate for it."

This cycle, Lieu is encouraging Democrats to run in districts the DCCC has never even considered before-- including against a powerful GOP chairmen like Ed Royce and Devin Nunes, not to mention Dana Rohrabacher, Darrell Issa, Mimi Walters, as well as the regular suspects the DCCC has continuously screws up (Denham, Valadao, Knight). And in the past, where the DCCC has aggressively discouraged Democrats from taking on Republicans like McCarthy, Duncan Hunter, Ken Calvert and Paul Cook, Lieu has been willing to spend time helping candidates even in these "impossible" districts.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 06, 2017

Americans Want Privacy-- Including Republicans

>




A couple of nights ago, Rachel Maddow did a long and interesting segment about what the Trumpist Regime does behind closed doors. The whole segment is posted above. And it's primarily about how the Trumpists are secretly moving more troops into Syria without asking for congressional approval. The decision making is behind closed doors. The second example that Maddow discusses though, is the one I want to take up today. Just before the 11 and a half mark on the clip, she mentions how the Regime tried hiding the fact that Trump signed the incrediblely unpopular Republican bill that allows internet providers to sell your personal data without getting your permission or even alerting you that they're doing it.

Jeff Flake's Joint Resolution "providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to 'Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services,'" passed the House March 28 215-205 Not a single Democrat voted for it, not even the worst corporate whore Blue Dogs and New Dems. Even Sinema, Cuellar, Peterson and Gottheimer voted against this-- and they vote for everything the Republicans want. This one was too politically toxic even for them though. in fact it was too politically toxic for 15 Republicans as well. That's why the vote was so relatively close.

A combination of Freedom Caucus purists like, Justin Amash (R-MI), Mark Sanford (R-SC) and Mo Brooks (R-AL), and Republicans in unsafe seats in swing districts, like Mike Coffman (R-CO), Dave Riechert (R-WA), John Faso (R-NY) and Lee Zeldin (R-NY) refused to go along with Ryan and McCarthy on this one.

In The Senate, Flake's resolution had already passed, 50-48, on March 23. Every Democrat voted NO, including Manchin and Heitkamp, and every Republican voted YES, except 2 who were absent. Back to Maddow... she is very correct in calling it "a big deal, a big deal for all of us. This is a material change from the way your data is handled now... Thanks to this bill that President Trump just signed, my Internet prcvider-- and yours-- can take your browsing history, can take their record of everything you have ever downloaded, can take their data about everything you have ever done online, all of your financial information, everything they have got on you, and they can sell it-- to anyone, without even giving you notice that they're doing so, let alone allowing you the opportunity to object. And if you don't have a lot of choice of internet providers, which a lot of people don't, your only option is for opting out of this system, for protecting yourself at all is to... not use the internet?... As you might imagine, this thing is radically unpopular. Even the radically pro-Donald Trump corners of the internet... Trump supporters are freaking out that he just signed this thing."

YouGov's national poll asked people if Trump should sign the bill or veto it. 11% thought he should sign it. 74% wanted him to veto it. But he didn't veto it. He kicked out the cameras, shut the doors and signed it-- behind closed doors... "no press, no tweets, no cameras... They signed it in secret."

Democrats running against incumbents would have to be insane not to make this into a big campaign issue. It isn't some abstract; this touches all of our lives and it shows the Republicans off at their corporate worst-- and their authoritarian worse. So, for example, the internet providers-- like AT&T, Century Link, Charter (Spectrum), Comcast, Cox, Frontier, Optimum, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and Windstream-- gave Darrell Issa $317,200 last year alone for his cooperation on this kind of legislation. This issue of taylor-made for Doug Applegate, Issa' progressive opponent. This afternoon he told us that "Darrell Issa will do anything to avoid talking to his constituents. But he'll gladly vote to allow his internet service provider donors to his campaign profit from selling those same constituents' internet history. Daryl hasn't served a single day in Congress without rigging the system."

Same in an inland district north of Issa's, where Kevin McCarthy gobbled up an astronomical $400,300 from the internet providers so that he would guide their legislation through Congress. I asked his Democratic opponent, Wendy Reed, who told me that "This is a perfect example of how our so-called Representative represents corporate donors and corporate-controlled government while I represent the interests of real people. This action shows patent disrespect for our liberties and our right to consent. Americans have the right to a government that serves the people and reflects the will of the people. This action, allowing corporations to sell our private and personal information for profit, is the opposite of what Americans want."


Exactly right-- and even if her district, CA-23, has a PVI of R+16 with far more registered Republicans than registered Democrats-- this issue transcends political parties. And McCarthy is on the wrong side of it while Reed is standing with the people from Lancaster, Rosamond, California City, Tehachapi, Bakersfield and Porterville.


Labels: , , , , , , , ,