2020 Primary Challenges Could Get Pretty Ugly-- No, No... They Will Be Ugly For Sure

No one can put the Ocasio-Crowley primary in a box and sell it in other districts

Last week the New York Times published a lazy piece by Shane Goldmacher, The Ocasio-Cortez Effect: Wave of Challenges Hits Entrenched N.Y. Democrats, that defines superficial reporting. It should be lost on no one that Ocasio Cortez's stunning and successful campaign against New York's ultimate congressional insider ("the next speaker of the House"), Queens County machine boss, Joe Crowley, was utterly missed-- if not purposefully ignored-- by her hometown paper. Perhaps they're making a half-assed attempt to make up for it by covering some generally non-existent primaries in the area. "Half assed" is better described as quarter-assed... if that. The first sentence may be correct-- let's hope: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may be just the beginning." But Goldmacher goes nowhere from the correct way to begin his piece.

Blue America has been involved, on one level or another, in every successful Democratic primary against a conservative incumbent since 2006-- Donna Edwards, Beto, Matt Cartwright, AOC... We have also been involved on a ton of them that haven't been successful. If I've learned one thing it's that they succeed when a determined and capable challenger (very, very hard to find, let alone invent) takes on an easily-defined villain with an established bad record. That was certainly the case with Edwards in Maryland, Beto in Texas, Cartwright in Pennsylvania and Ocasio Cortez in New York. Each of them is an extremely talented and charismatic politician and each ran against a corrupt, out-of-touch conservative who was supported fully by an establishment generally loathed by the grassroots.

Goldmacher generally neglected to look at any of that and instead spouts irrelevant nonsense like "Party insurgents are plotting and preparing to battle with the entrenched establishment-- targeting as many as a half-dozen Congress members in and around New York City-- over what it means to be a Democrat and a progressive in the age of President Trump. The coming New York uprising could result in a series of races that lay bare some of the same generational, racial, gender and ideological cleavages expected to define the 2020 presidential primary. The activist left, in particular, hopes that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s victory will inspire a brush fire of Democrat-on-Democrat campaigns that will spread from New York across the nation."

"Party insurgents?" Really? Grass roots activists might be a better way to describe the point he's fumbling towards. As for "generational, racial, gender and ideological cleavages," which worked in Ocasio Cortez's campaign, we'll have to look at each race Goldmacher is reporting to be a potential primary battle. He's certainly right when he claims "serious primary challengers for House seats have historically been rare, and it is almost unheard of for so many to emerge in one region so early in the election cycle." And they haven't emerged, except on the page in the Times his piece was published on.

The first member Goldmacher identifies as a potential target is Jerry Nadler-- who represents a district that includes areas of Manhattan (the Upper West Side, Soho, Chelsea, the Village, the Financial District) and Brooklyn (mostly Borough Park). His super-highly educated Manhattan constituents are not likely to be persuaded he's a villain at all. His ProgressivePunch score is "A" and has always been "A" and his voting record is ranked-- and has always been ranked-- among the 20 most perfect progressive records in Congress. I don't think Nadler or his team ever thought he could be primaried from the left. His last primary was in 2016 when the far right Hassidics who run Borough Park recruited and supported a candidate, Mikhail Oliver Rosenberg, son of a millionaire, to run against Nadler when he voted for the Iran nuclear deal. It looked like if they could order their zombie followers to go out and vote against Nadler-- in what was predicted to be a low-turn-out election, they could pull off an upset. (They even persuaded racist former comedian Jackie Mason to cut a robocall for their candidate.) Instead it was the second highest turn-out primary in the state that year and Mason and the zombies were nowhere to be seen.

Rosenberg fancied himself the new generation (and a part of a strong LGBTQ community) up against an old and tired Nadler. (Nadler has been in the forefront of every pro-gay initiative in his career and gay organizations backed Nadler.) Rosenberg campaigned on a solid green energy platform, on legalizing marijuana, and as an advocate for Israel. 85% of his campaign expenditures ($366,852) came from his own bank account and, like Trump, he claimed he wouldn't be beholden to special interests. Nadler beat Rosenberg in a landslide-- 88.78% to 10.26%.

Goldmacher reports that next year "Nadler could face a primary from Lindsey Boylan, a former economic development adviser to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who appears to want to run on a platform of "I'm a woman and he's not."

She said she was considering a run after watching the 2018 midterms, as “these women decided not to wait their turn because it was never going to be their turn.”

“I just can’t justify having my daughter watch me sit on the sidelines,” she said.

A huge X-factor in any Nadler primary would be the billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who has pushed for the impeachment of Mr. Trump. Mr. Steyer has already polled the popularity of impeachment in the district and is launching a $200,000 direct mail, television and digital ad campaign this week urging Mr. Nadler to begin impeachment hearings in his committee.

Goldmacher identified Tom Suozzi, Eliot Engel, Yvette Clarke, José Serrano, Carolyn Maloney and Kathleen Rice as likely targets. Suozzi, Engel and Rice are New Dems with relatively conservative voting records. Serrano, Maloney and Clarke are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Engel is rumored to be buying his way into the Progressive Caucus so he will be able to use that membership to claim he's progressive. These are the crucial vote scores for all 7 candidates identified in the piece.

• Yvette Clarke- 95.88- A
• Jerry Nadler- 94.98- A
• José Serrano- 93.71- A
• Carolyn Maloney- 86.47- C
• Eliot Engel- 85.30- C
• Kathleen Rice- 63.16- F
• Tom Suozzi- 54.05- F

"Not every challenge in New York," wrote Goldmacher, "will be run on ideological grounds. Some will be powered by more local disputes, longstanding grudges or just timely ambition. But for many progressives, the goal is to police the Democratic Party ideologically, much in the way the Tea Party pushed Republicans to the right."

“We are trying to elect more Alexandrias,” said Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats, the insurgent group devoted to recruiting progressive primary challengers nationally. “She is an example of what one victory can do. Imagine what we can do with more primary wins across the country.”

After Mr. Crowley’s defeat almost no one is seen as untouchable.

“They should be afraid,” Maria L. Svart, the national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, which backed Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, said of incumbent House Democrats.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez herself appeared in a promotional video for Justice Democrats and on an organizing call for the group last November during which Saikat Chakrabarti, now her chief of staff, declared, “We gotta primary folks.”

True, but targets should be carefully chosen. It amazes me, for example, that Justice Democrats and DSA have seemingly ignored, at least so far, corrupt New Dem Gregory Meeks. Nadler and Serrano may not be perfect-- but they certainly are in comparison to Meeks, who seems to exist in Congress primarily to collect bribes. A member of the House Financial Services Committee, he's taken $3,665,788 from the Finance Sector, including $564,100 in the last cycle. What's more, Meeks' likely challenger is the ideal candidate for the seat. Khaair Morrison is a 25 year old African-American attorney born and raised in the district, which, he told me yesterday "is ripe for a fresh leadership after having ineffective leadership for 20+ years. Working class neighborhoods like South East Queens, Nassau, Valley Stream, and Far Rockaway have had an up-close seat to the major issues of our time. After Hurricane Sandy, areas are still rebuilding as we see the effects of Global Warming. We were the epicenter for the foreclosure crisis and many have still not able to get their homes back. We see the brutality of broken windows and mass incarceration as our kids are constantly targeted for low-level offenses that ruin opportunities for black and brown lives to be productive members of our society. We have seen how poor infrastructure and lack of planning can ruin a neighborhood's vitality. We have seen the decrepit state of public housing and are still without creative ideas to make housing more equitable. It is time we do things differently and that we speak truth to power." True, that-- and time for a self-serving do-nothing congressman like Meeks to bow out and let a fresh can-do kind of guy like Morrison take the seat.

Meeks is one of the New York congressmembers who Goldmacher was no doubt referring to when he wrote that they "have sought to establish personal or professional bonds with Ocasio-Cortez, signing onto her Green New Deal, for instance-- recognizing the power of her megaphone. In an interview in January, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said she had 'put zero energy' into the question of primarying colleagues. She said the freshman class had 'already changed the opinions and commitments of a lot of incumbent members already. And I think that is something we should absolutely consider.' Whether or not Ms. Ocasio-Cortez gets personally involved, insurgent groups are plowing ahead."

Let me jump to Carolyn Maloney, a difficult target ideologically put perfect for a reformist challenger to take on based on ethics. Her corruption is just mind-boggling, even if her voting record is pretty good. She's not just a member of the House Financial Services Committee, she's the chair of the Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets-- and exploits that to the max in her fundraising efforts. Among current members of the House, only 3 have been bigger Finance Sector money pigs than Maloney. A case can-- and should-- be made that these are the half dozen most corrupt members of Congress, at least in regard to Wall Street banksters, and that they should all be carted off to jail holding tanks before their trials:

• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $8,086,692
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $6,865,814
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- $6,376,379
• Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)- $6,309,318
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $5,627,242
• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $5,620,077

Suraj Patel ran against Maloney in 2018 and may do it again next year. He ought to. NY-12 is a solidly blue district (D+31) that spans Manhattan (Yorkville, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Kips Bay, Gramercy Park, Alphabet City and the Lower East Side), Queens (Astoria, Long Island City, Sunnyside) and Brooklyn (Greenpoint and north Williamsburg). Interstate 278 separates Maloney's district from Ocasio's in Queens. Of the 251,604 people who voted in 2018, 190,771 were in Manhattan, 35,728 in Queens and 25,105 in Brooklyn. The district has changed-- and rapidly, as Ocasio's had-- and in similar ways. First of all, though not most important per se, the D+27 PVI in 2017 jumped to D+31 in 2019. That's a big jump and it's the other changes that account for it. The white population is smaller but still dominant, though the fastest growing demos are Asians, Latinos, Arabs and-- very significantly-- highly educated and politicized millennials. Patel: "The status quo isn’t good enough. Our values are under attack by leaders that don’t share or understand our lived experiences, and it’s going to take new ideas and louder voices to make real change... We deserve a congressperson who isn’t recklessly indifferent to the less privileged."

Patel ended up with a bit over 40% of the vote, a great accomplishment against a forever incumbent on a first try. Goldmacher interviewed Sean McElwee, who has been involved in finding primary challengers in New York and who was a co-founder of the progressive think tank Data for Progress. McElwee told him that "in deep blue states, Republicans increasingly don’t exist. We spend a lot of time thinking about why we have right-wing corporate Democrats selling out our interests." McElwee told him the push to recruit a challenger to Engel, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee and has been in Congress for three decades (and who represents the Likud Party of Israel and their lobbyists, AIPAC, far more than he does the folks who live in the 16th district (including Riverdale, Fieldston and Eastchester in the Bronx, abutting Ocasio's district, and New Rochelle, Yonkers, Mount Vernon, Mamaroneck, Scarsdale and up to Rye and Hastings-on-Hudson in Westchester.

Blue America has been trying to find a local elected official to take Engel on for years, but with not a nibble. McElwee calls finding a primary opponent for him a "top priority" and recently commissioned a poll there. The district used to be overwhelming white but now whites only make up 39% of the population. Blacks, Latinos and Asians make it a minority-majority district. McElwee is eager to find "a younger candidate of color in 2020; only about a half-dozen white Democratic men represent a more diverse district in Congress than Mr. Engel," wrote Goldmacher.

One potential challenger mulling a run is Andom Ghebreghiorgis, a Yale graduate and 33-year-old educator in Mount Vernon, who said that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez "showed there’s a hunger, especially here in New York, for representatives who reflect the changing progressive politics of their communities."

In a statement, Mr. Engel praised the party’s "new energy" and said the fact that anyone can run "is the beauty of our electoral system." But, he added, "think we’re doing the people we represent and the country a disservice by focusing on 2020 primaries when we have so much to do right now in Washington."

Yeah-- but not in NY-16. There are 4 congressmembers who represent parts of the Bronx, Ocasio, Engel, Adriano Espaillat-- a relatively new member, a progressive and a very good fit for the district-- and José Serrano (NY-15) in the center of the borough, in some ways the furthest left district in New York. The PVI is D+44, the bluest in the state and Trump only managed to win 4.9% of the vote in 2016 (slightly better than Romney did, but still Trump's worst performance anywhere in America. Only 2% of the population is white. The last Republican who won this district was Calvin Coolidge in 1924. The Bronx Machine has been eager to take Serrano out for some time but no one wants to run against him. In 2014 his primary opponent, Sam Sloan won 9% of the vote. His 2016 primary opponent, Leonel Baez won 10.8% and in 2018 there was no primary opponent. In the 2018 general election, the Republican candidate was Jason Gonzalez and Serrano beat him 124,469 (96%) to 5,205 (4%). City Councilman Ritchie Torres, a 30-year-old often described as a rising star, is weighing a run based on the whole "it's my turn, you're too old" thing.

Yvette Clarke, who won with only 53%, is facing a rematch with Adem Bunkeddeko, the Harvard-educated son of war Ugandan refugees who had been endorsed by the New York Times. "We’re at a moment of reckoning. Some people get it and some people don’t. Maybe someone’s seventh term is the charm? But most of us aren’t holding our breath." Goldmacher spoke with her and she told him that "she had reorganized her district office following the 2018 close call and is aggressively selling her progressive credentials in the more gentrified and liberal parts of the district, such as Park Slope. 'I definitely will not be caught by surprise.' She has among the dozen most progressive voting records in Congress. Bunkeddeko's point is that she's basically just a backbencher who votes well and doesn't do much for the district.

The last two likely primary races are on Long Island-- Tom Suozzi and Kathleen Rice, both New Dems who are going to be challenged from the left. I'm going to do a separate post on these two races because both are swingy districts that could, at least in theory, flip red if the incumbents are beaten.


UPDATE: Democratic Primary In Arizona

At dawn today, the Arizona Republic reported that Eva Putzova, a former Flagstaff city councilwoman, is running for the AZ-01 seat currently held by reactionary Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran.

Putzova, who announced her candidacy in January, said her top priority in Congress would be to address the process immigrants have to go through to become citizens. She said the current system takes too long and leaves people at the mercy of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers for far too long.

She also wants ICE restructured.

“Nobody is saying that enforcement in immigration is not important, but ICE as an agency is rogue,” she said. “It needs to be completely restructured.”

..."A #GreenNewDeal should be every candidates priority in 2020," she tweeted Feb. 10 in support of the "Green New Deal" environmental plan championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

Her campaign website lists other top issues: universal health care, tuition-free college, indigenous peoples' rights, "meaningful climate action," "no more wars," women's reproductive health and workers' rights.

...O’Halleran, the two-term incumbent, appears to have the support of national Democrats.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently added him to its "Frontline" program.

The DCCC's Frontline program is designed to help provide Democratic members of Congress with the support they need to win re-election. O’Halleran is now one of 44 members of Congress in the program.

“Tom O’Halleran wins tough races because he understands the concerns of hard-working Arizonans, and because he never forgot where he came from,” Rep. Cheri Bustos, the 2020 cycle's DCCC chairwoman, said in a written statement.

“We’re proud to stand with Tom as a member of our Frontline program to ensure he has the support he needs to win and keep working for Arizona,” Bustos (Blue Dog-IL) added.

Blue America has already endorsed Eva Putzova and if you'd like to see another member of Congress who supports Bernie's platform replace an "ex"-Republican Blue Dog, please click on the ActBlue Primary A Blue Dog thermometer on the right and contribute what you can.

Democratic Primaries-- The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

Perfect primary target

This cycle there are, literally, 7 fake Democrats in the House who have voting records worse than at least one Republican. This is the bottom of the barrel among Democrats (with their 2017-'18 ProgressivePunch crucial vote scores)-- along with the Republicans who vote more frequently along progressive lines:

• Brad Schneider (Blue Dog-IL)- 44.90
• Walter Jones (R-NC)- 44.83
• Justin Amash (R-MI)- 41.84
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)- 39.18
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- 39.18
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- 37.76
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- 32.97
• Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)- 30.93
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)- 30.93
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- 29.90
• Thomas Massie (R-KY)- 26.32
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 25.51
• Jimmy Duncan (R-TN)- 24.74
• Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)- 24.74

Note that former Democrat Walter Jones, for example, is nearly twice as likely to have voted with progressives than Collin Peterson, who the DCCC has spent millions of dollars to keep in Congress. All that said, Alex Seitz-Wald's report for NBC, that the anti-Trump wave may wash out some Democrats is either foolishness or wishful thinking. If Marie Newman couldn't beat Dan Lipinski Seitz-Wald's list of liberals is not going to beat beaten by candidates slightly more liberal. He's simply created some idiotic click-bait based on... thin air.

Many of the challengers he talks about seem really good. Some have called me to make their case for Blue America endorsements. But while Blue America was the very first national PAC to back Newman, none of the Seitz-Wald challengers has gotten our endorsement. He doesn't give due credit to Mike Capuano (D-MA), an excellent and hard-working progressive-- and makes him seem like a slug. It's Seitz-Wald who seems more like a slug in his attempt to build a mountain out of a molehill. After Trump's election, he asserted, "the liberal base began to demand more from its leaders than a party-line voting record."

OK, that's true but not in the way Seitz-Wald claims. The worst and most high profile Democratic Party leaders-- Pelosi, Hoyer and Crowley-- all have primary opponents. The only one making a case persuasive enough to attract any attention is Alexandria Ocasio's run against Crowley, which Seitz-Wald doesn't even mention. Instead he writes that "Capuano is facing his first primary challenge-- and he’s not alone, with a small but growing number of entrenched Democrats watching as insurgents out-fundraise them with a sense of urgency fueled by President Donald Trump and an unwillingness to follow the old rules of deference to party elders."

“I understand that this is uncomfortable for many people,” said Ayanna Pressley, Capuano’s challenger. “These are different times and it requires our being disruptive.”

Pressley, the first woman of color elected to the Boston City Council, has been dubbed the future of politics and fêted by Emily’s List, the Democratic women’s group, with a prestigious “Rising Star” award.

Even though she’s upsetting the applecart, Pressley has won support from major unions and a tacit nod from members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, who made the unusual decision not to support their colleague and sit out the race.

Unlike a recent Illinois primary fought over abortion rights, or the 2016 presidential primary, Pressley and Capuano hold virtually the same political views.

What sets them apart is volume, not pitch, with Pressley saying these times require “activist-leadership" from people with a wider ranger of life experiences.

“We have an opportunity here,” she said of the Trump era. “It can be a moment where we grow and build the most progressive movement of our times.”

Democrats are no stranger to messy primaries in open seats or ones held by Republicans. But they almost always defer to their congressmen once elected.

Since the tea party wave uncorked the bottle in 2010, Republicans have been significantly more likely to face primaries than Democrats, according to the Brookings Institution. Only two House Democrats lost their seats to friendly fire in the last election.

“Beating an incumbent of your own party is one of the hardest thing to do,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) who defeated an eight-term incumbent on his second attempt two years ago.

Khanna went after a progressive old-time, Mike Honda, who had lost the ability to campaign vigorously. But the first time Khanna ran against him Honda survived. Two years later, with Honda refusing to do so, Khanna backed Bernie in the primary and that made the difference. Another one of Seitz-Wald's make believe races is between Adem Bunkeddeko and Rep. Yvette Clarke, one of the dozen most progressive members of Congress, first elected in 2006. Her ProgressivePunch score is closet to Keith Ellison (who also has two primary opponents, Jamal Abdulahi and Peggy Flanagan, who even Seitz-Wald knows better than two stick into his silly story). Bunkeddeko case is that Clarke "has done not enough to promote affordable housing in her rapidly gentrifying district. At the end of the day, it’s about getting things done." Tell it to Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and Trumpanzee.

Eliot Engel is a random New Dem in the Bronx and Westchester and he's not going anywhere but, yeah, there's a primary opponent, Jonathan Lewis. Basically a vanity candidate, like many of Seitz-Wald's challengers, he said, "If I told you there are nations in the world where people are running for election after election completely unopposed, you might wonder what country that is." Heavy. As for outraising Engel, he put $510,500 of his own into his campaign warchest, 81.38% of what he reported "raising." Bunkeddeko did better, raising $200,949 to Clarke's $606,274. And Cpauano's opponent, Pressley has raised a respectable $363,526 to his $838,222. Saira Rao is running a primary from the left against centrist Democrat Diane DeGette in Denver. Rao raised $255,329 to DeGette's $667,672. Rao is one of the challengers who has reason to hope "the super-charged Democratic base and widespread frustration with elected officials will let them catch incumbents sleeping."

“We have a big split in the party. I don’t know that the party establishment has fully wrapped its mind around it,” said Saira Rao, who is challenging Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO).

In hipsterifying Denver, the first-time candidate outraised DeGette, a member of Democratic leadership and a 23-year incumbent.

Rao volunteered for Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016, but grew frustrated with the Democratic Party for taking the votes of women of color like her for granted.

So she wrote an essay on Breaking Up With the Democratic Party that went viral, and the overwhelming response compelled her to run for office.

“We have a window (to save the country). It’s closing pretty soon. We don’t have until 2020 and I have zero faith that the corporate Democrats in Congress will do a damn thing about it,” Rao said. “Thank you for your service Nancy Pelosi, but we need new leadership.”

The odds are stacked against upstarts, and what few polls exist have shown them behind. Voters in safe districts don’t typically pay attention to congressional primaries, with some big city districts posting single-digit turnout in the past.

That’s a shame, says Suraj Patel, a 34-year-old Obama campaign alum and New York University professor challenging Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., an institution in Manhattan politics.

“No party should be satisfied with 6 percent turnout,” said Patel. “We don't just need to elect Democrats, which we do, we need to elect better Democrats.”

Patel has raised nearly $1.1 million, outpacing Maloney two quarters in a row, and built a massive campaign team for a congressional race, with 25 staffers and 49 interns.

As he sees it, Democrats should be using the safety of deep blue seats in progressive major cities to take risks on new policy ideas and champion a bold agenda.

“We're really wasting an incredible opportunity to lead from districts like this,” he said.

Maloney is a Wall Street shill and she should be a reasonable target for Patel and his progressive message. But does that message ring genuine for most East Side (from Yorkville to Alphabet City) and Astoria/Long Island City/Greenpoint voters? And, by the way... we're still vetting some of these candidates for Blue America endorsements even if the hill is too steep to get to the top of in one cycle. Saira Rao may is probably the most likely exception and we're probably going to be endorsing her. Blue America very much likes helping good candidates build brands for a long-terms strategic future runs as we did for Donna Edwards and Alan Grayson, first time losers and eventual winners who went on to be among the best members of Congress in decades. (And Blue America is far more likely to put effort into defeating bad Democrats-- like Joe Crowley-- than "pretty good" Democrats.)

Does EVERY Member Of Congress Deserve A Primary Challenge?

Even Lipinski's own colleagues in Congress want him out

On Sunday, Politico ran a story by Laura Nahmias and Lauren Dezenski, Progressives storm Democratic primaries. It brought up some important races but didn't talk much about when incumbents deserve to be primaried and when they don't, a tough, sometimes, nuanced question.

Progressive insurgents are launching challenges to Democratic members of Congress in some of the country’s bluest districts, sparked by deep frustration with the party establishment and anti-Trump anger.

Most of the challengers are long shots at the moment. But some are putting a scare into entrenched incumbents, thanks to their muscular fundraising and a message of liberal disaffection on issues including Wall Street, criminal justice reform and single-payer health care.

...In New York, Adem Bunkeddeko is one of three young Democrats taking on longtime incumbents. Bunkeddeko, who is challenging Rep. Yvette Clarke in the Brooklyn-based 9th Congressional District, points out that Clarke hasn’t been able to pass a bill in Congress since she arrived there. He’s running on a platform to bring new subsidized housing to his district and enact criminal justice reforms-- ending cash bail, changing sentencing laws and legalizing marijuana.

He’s garnered support from some unusual places — including longtime Democratic political adviser Vernon Jordan and former New York lieutenant governor and civic booster Richard Ravitch. In the most recent fundraising quarter, he raised roughly $121,000-- not far behind Clarke’s $164,000.

“People are tired of having a seat in which no one is speaking truth to power, and no one is giving voice to folks whose voices aren’t heard,” said Bunkeddeko, a Harvard MBA-holding community organizer whose parents raised him in New York after fleeing war-torn Uganda. “She does carry the advantage of being the incumbent, but the mood, the landscape-- that’s in our favor.”

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade-- or at least not on any progressive's parades. But sometimes maybe it really is better to run for city council or state legislature instead of heading right for Congress out of the blue. Sometimes. Blue America, the PAC I started in 2005 has often been the first to endorse and raise money for solid progressives running against conservative incumbents. I believe we were the first to help Donna Edwards against Al Wynn in Maryland, the first to help Matt Cartwright against Tim Holden in Pennsylvania, the first to help Beto O'Rourke against Silvestre Reyes in El Paso, the first to back Tim Canova against Debbie Wasserman Schultz in south Florida. We don't shy away from a fight and more recently I believe we were the first out-of-state PAC to endorse Marie Newman against Blue Dog Dan Lipinski in Chicagoland. It isn't the first time we've gotten behind a candidate challenging him. We also backed a candidate against Rahm Emanuel when he was at the height of his power and we're helping Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raise some money in her campaign to replace corrupt machine boss and Wall Street whore Joe Crowley (Queens and the Bronx). We even have an ActBlue page specifically for challengers to the worst incumbents. Here, click on this to see who we're backing this cycle so far.

Waiting for the "but?" Here comes. Sometimes I talk to well-meaning candidates and I realize they have nothing going for them at all other than some kind of naive idealism-- not even the ability to interact in a vaguely professional manner. It isn't enough to be running against a villain. And it's very hard to displace an entrenched incumbent. Candidates should be excellent, not half-baked. The reason we moved Marie Newman from our Primary A Blue Dog page to our regular congressional page is because she's the real deal, and as good as anyone running for office anywhere. She plays in the Big Leagues and has a real chance to win and replace Lipinski. When I contribute to her, I don't feel like I'm wasting my money. When I ask Blue America members to contribute their money I don't feel like I'm leading them on a pointless wild goose chase. That doesn't mean she's necessarily going to win-- no one knows that-- but it does mean she's going to give it her all and that her all is worth gambling on.

There's another factor. Does the incumbent deserve a challenge or is the challenger just an ego-maniac running a vanity campaign? No incumbent deserves a challenge more than Lipinski. He's anti-Choice, anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant, anti-healthcare. He votes with the Republicans on almost everything-- one of the worst Democrats in Congress, worse than worthless. Yvette Clarke in my old neighborhood in Brooklyn? No, she has not earned a challenge. She may not be perfect-- no one is-- but ProgressivePunch rates her an "A" and her lifetime crucial vote score is 95.82, about the same as Keith Ellison's. She has the 13th best voting record of 435 members of the House. Her score is fractionally better than Barbara Lee's, Jerry Nadler's and John Lewis'. We need more people in Congress like Yvette Clarke, not fewer. I never heard of Adem Bunkeddeko and perhaps he's fantastic but why not start by running against a bad-guy instead of one of the good ones.

In Massachusetts, Mike Capuano is the only incumbent with an "A" besides Jim McGovern and Katherine Clark. Does he really deserve a primary? Stephen Lynch does. And Richard Neal? Neal scores a "C" in a very strong Democratic seat. Lynch, however has an "F" and a really bad record across the board. Capuano's district has a D+34 PVI. Neal's is D+12 and Lynch's is D+6. Those are all districts that call for strong progressive leadership. But aside from Lynch, the Massachusetts Democrat who really deserves a challenge is Seth Moulton who struts around like a future vice presidential nominee while earning contempt from progressives in committee and racking up an "F" and a lifetime crucial vote score of 73.66, just like what New Dems have. No one is primarying him though. Capuano gets a primary but Moulton doesn't? Does that make any sense?

In 2014 and 2016 we didn't endorse Ro Khanna in his race against progressive Mike Honda but halfway through the Honda 2016 campaign I realized Honda didn't know how to fight anymore and that he wasn't going to win. Khanna was just a better fighter, maybe like what Honda was when he was much younger. After the campaign, Honda got the word out to his supporters to give Khanna a chance. We did-- and now he's one of the very best members of Congress-- a real super-star. Honda was great in his day. But his day had passed-- everyone's does-- and this is Ro Khanna's day. It took him 2 cycles, though to beat Honda. It took Donna Edwards 2 cycles to beat Wynn. It's not easy to take down an incumbent, especially an incumbent of your own party. 

Conservatives In Congress Vote To Deny Climate Change

Earlier we mentioned that the House voted to authorize unconstitutional domestic spying on American citizens yesterday. The day didn't get any better. Next up was the crackpot Republican bill to overturn the EPA's climate change regulations for power plants. It passed 242-180 while the President was in Paris for an International Climate Change conference, something that earned him the disdain of two particularly vile Climate Change deniers, Sean Hannity and Mike Huckabee. The latter was on the former's silly show claiming "America needs a commander-in-chief, not a weather-obsessed meteorologist-in-chief." How pathetic is that. Maybe Huckabee should watch the short speech Ted Lieu (D-CA) made on the floor of Congress-- above-- on exactly why it is imperative and urgent for the president and Congress to act on this... and it's not about the weather. Speaking before the vote yesterday, Lieu said, "This is just another example of the Republican majority denying the urgency and severity of carbon pollution. At a time when the entire world is meeting in Paris to address carbon pollution, the Republican majority is doing exactly the opposite. History books will one day say that America led the way in addressing climate change and saving our planet-- or there will be no history books."

Purposefully ignorant climate change denier Mike Huckabee

The Republican bill, which, obviously, the President will veto if it gets through the Senate-- also unlikely-- tries to permanently block the whole premise of fighting Climate Change. Four of the House's most corrupt right-wing "Democrats"-- Blue Dogs, some of whom only exist as congressmen because the DCCC underwrites their reelections-- crossed the aisle and voted with the Republicans, as they almost always do: Collin Peterson (MN), Sanford Bishop (GA), Brad Ashford (NE) and Henry Cuellar (TX).

Just as the House was voting Bernie Sanders was saying that "The pope was right when he said the problems are getting worse and that unless we act ‘we are at the limits of suicide.' The evidence is overwhelming. When the final calculations are made, 2015 will replace 2014 as the warmest year on record. Draughts, floods and severe storms already are impacting the planet and the situation will only become worse in years to come. I find it unacceptable that many of my Republican colleagues are more worried about campaign contributions they’re getting from the Koch brothers and others in the fossil fuel industry than they are about preserving the planet for our children and grandchildren."

Brooklyn Congressman Yvette Clarke explained, very clearly, why she voted against the two horrible resolutions: "Pollution from power plants, particularly plants that burn coal, has terrible consequences for our health, contributing to asthma and other respiratory illnesses, and resulting in global climate change that has already increased the severity of storms and threatens to displace many people around the world as temperatures increase and the level of the ocean rises. Existing regulations under the Clean Air Act have-- despite false claims from fossil fuel producers-- dramatically improved the air quality we enjoy and have expanded our economy. Many older American remember a time when smog alerts were a regular occurrence in our cities-- a problem with which young Americans are entirely (and fortunately) unfamiliar. Now, we have the opportunity, with the  Clean Power Plan developed by the Environmental Protection Agency, to continue that effort to protect the health of Americans, create jobs, and reduce our contributions to global climate change."

It's especially shocking to see Florida's coastal Republicans in districts which are already being impacted by rising oceans, stick their heads in the sand and march lock-step with their party over the cliff. Particularly cowardly are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Miami and Coral Gables), David Jolly (Pinellas Co.) Carlos Curbelo (the Florida Keys), Gus Bilirakis (Tarpon Springs and Palm Harbor), Vern Buchanan (Sarasota, Bradenton), Tom Rooney (Port Charlotte) and Curt Clawson (Cape Coral, Ft. Meyers, Naples), the communities already being affected in brackets. A very similar companion bill voted on within minutes of the first one was too much denial even for Ros-Lehtinen and Curbelo, who crossed the aisle and voted with the Democrats, but the rest of the Florida Republicans were only too happy to smile and sign their constituents' death warrants. Although Wasserman-Schultz has made sure that Ros-Lehtinen will never have an opponent in her blue district, Curbelo is facing fierce opposition to his reelection bid. Annette Taddeo was mortified-- though not expecting anything more from him-- that Curbelo thought he could please his wealthy donors by voting against one bill and placate his constituents by voting for the other one. "I'm not surprised my chameleon opponent tried to have it both ways, but when the literal future of our district is on the line he chose to side with his party yet again."

Arming Syrian Moderates? They Are No Syrian Moderates Except In McCain's Twisted Mind

The House leaders-- afraid of midterm voters-- avoided voting for war in the Middle East yesterday and instead voted to fund what McCain insists are "moderate" Syrian rebels… you know, the ones who have been selling arms and captives to ISIS (the "non-moderates") for months. Do we never learn? Anything? Buck McKeon's slippery slope amendment passed 273 to 156 with 85 Democrats and 71 Republicans voting against it. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) has learned history's lessons. Like most progressives, he voted NO-- and made the case why all Democrats should have:

If we’ve learned one thing in the thirteen years since we rushed into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is that wars cannot be rushed. Conflicts cannot be won through cut corners and half-measures. We must be deliberate, and have a clear depiction of our allies and enemies alike. We must have assurances and participation from other nations in the region. We must have a clearly defined-- and achievable-- mission. Most importantly, it must be clear in our minds how we will bring hostilities to an end.

On every one of these thresholds, the arming of Syrian rebels to confront ISIL fails to reach the mark. While I am deeply troubled by the violence spreading in the region, I will not cast a vote that only further complicates and intensifies the fight.

Syrian rebels are not loyal to our flag, and they will not do our bidding. They will pursue their own interests, and while allied today, they may be a sworn enemy tomorrow. We have seen time after tragic time that the weapons we provide will be aimed at our own troops if that comes to pass.

A successful response to this crisis can only come with the significant involvement of other nations in the region. They have the most to lose if ISIL remains unchecked, and they have a vested interest in the social, political and economic implications of this conflict. If we proceed despite the tepid response from nations like Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, we will be taking sides in a civil war and welcoming the perception that we’ve adopted the conflict as our own.

This is not a strategy for victory or a roadmap to peace. It is a prescription for more war, and I cannot in good conscience support it.

Republican Justin Amash also voted NO, not because he's a deranged, obstructionist Obama-hater (like, say, Michele Bachmann) but for very similar reasons to the ones Grijalva gave. He explained why he voted against it to his constituents very thoroughly. Did yours reach out to you this way?

What have we learned from the last decade of war?

Those years should have taught us that when going to war, our government must:

(1) be careful when defining a military mission,
(2) speak forthrightly with the American people about the sacrifices they will be called to make,
(3) plan more than one satisfactory end to the conflict, and
(4) be humble about what we think we know.

These lessons should be at the front of our minds when Congress votes today on whether to arm groups in Syria.

Today’s amendment ostensibly is aimed at destroying ISIS-- yet you’d hardly know it from reading the amendment’s text. The world has witnessed with horror the evil of ISIS: the public beheading of innocents, the killing of Christians, Muslims, and others.

The amendment’s focus-- arming groups fighting the Assad government in Syria-- has little to do with defeating ISIS. The mission that the amendment advances plainly isn’t the defeat of ISIS; it’s the defeat of Assad.

Americans stood overwhelmingly against entangling our Armed Forces in the Syrian civil war a year ago. If Congress chooses to arm groups in Syria, it must explain to the American people not only why that mission is necessary but also the sacrifices that that mission entails.

The Obama administration has tried to rally support for U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war by implying that our help would be at arm’s length. The amendment Congress will vote on broadly authorizes “assistance” to groups in Syria. It does not specify what types of weapons our government will give the groups. It does not prohibit boots on the ground. (The amendment is silent on the president’s power to order our troops to fight in the civil war; it states only that Congress doesn’t provide “specific statutory authorization” for such escalation.) It does not state the financial cost of the war.

As we should have learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must plan for multiple satisfactory ends to military conflicts before we commence them.

If the Syrian groups that are “appropriately vetted” (the amendment’s language) succeed and oust Assad, what would result? Would the groups assemble a coalition government of anti-Assad fighters, and would that coalition include ISIS? What would happen to the Alawites and Christians who stood with Assad? To what extent would the U.S. government be obligated to occupy Syria to rebuild the government? If each of the groups went its own way, would Syria’s territory be broken apart, and if so, would ISIS control one of the resulting countries?

If the Syrian groups that we support begin to lose, would we let them be defeated? If not, is there any limit to American involvement in the war?

Perhaps some in the administration or Congress have answers to these questions. But the amendment we’ll vote on today contains none of them.

Above all, when Congress considers serious actions-- especially war-- we must be humble about what we think we know. We don’t know very much about the groups we propose to support or even how we intend to vet those groups. Reports in the last week suggest that some of the “appropriately vetted” groups have struck deals with ISIS, although the groups dispute the claim. The amendment requires the administration to report on its efforts to prevent our arms and resources from ending up in the wrong hands, but we know little about those precautions or their effectiveness.

Today, I will vote against the amendment to arm groups in Syria. There is a wide misalignment between the rhetoric of defeating ISIS and the amendment’s actual mission of arming certain groups in the Syrian civil war. The amendment provides few limits on the type of assistance that our government may commit, and the exit out of the civil war is undefined. And given what’s happened in our country’s most recent wars, our leaders seem to have unjustified confidence in their own ability to execute a plan with so many unknowns.

Some of my colleagues no doubt will come to different judgments on these questions. But it’s essential that they consider the questions carefully. That the president wants the authority to intervene in the Syrian civil war is not a sufficient reason to give him that power. Under the Constitution, it is Congress’s independent responsibility to commence war.

We are the representatives of the American people. The government is proposing to take their resources and to put their children’s lives at risk. I encourage all my colleagues to give the decision the weight it is due.

My own congressman, Adam Schiff, is a warmonger in a peace-loving progressive district he was recently shoe-horned into. He voted for Bush's attack on Iraq and is always, first and foremost a lackey for AIPAC and far right-extremists in Israel. Needless to say, he voted YES. He always votes for war and gore. If I still lived in Brooklyn on East 17th Street between Avenue P and O, my Rep. would be Yvette Clarke, who voted NO. Here's what she told the folks in my old neighborhood after the vote yesterday:

As our recent history demonstrates, armed conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan have often resulted in increased-- and unanticipated-- involvement by the armed forces of the United States. Before the War in Iraq, for example, the administration of President George W. Bush assured Congress and the American people that the conflict would end quickly, without substantial loss of life. Yet, American troops remain in Iraq, even after 4,487 were killed and 32,226 wounded. In Afghanistan, the Taliban were armed through the Congressional appropriations process, also known as ‘Charlie Wilson's War,’ in their battle against the Russians, only to become our fiercest adversaries and a breeding ground for terrorists. We cannot risk a similar outcome in Syria. If and when our nation becomes more substantially involved, we must have a comprehensive plan-- from start to finish.

The idea that we can simply train and equip Syrian rebel fighters to combat ISIS/ISAL to eliminate the terrorist threat to our nation flies in the face of the practical realities of the nature of the threat and the realities of the threat to the rebels themselves, that being the Assad Regime. I am deeply concerned that our interests are not necessarily aligned with the Syrian rebels.

Whether these rebels are truly our allies remains to be seen. Those who we train today could ultimately become our enemies, and could deploy the weapons which we have provided them against us and our allies. At a time when Republican leaders in Congress want to eliminate resources for job training programs and social services for families, I cannot in good conscience, given the current conditions in Syria of an ongoing civil war and a failed state, support the diversion of hundreds of millions of dollars from much needed domestic priorities into this precarious situation.

Most of the good Democrats-- like Alan Grayson, Mark Pocan, Donna Edwards, Jim McGovern, Barbara Lee… voted NO. Pelosi joined the worst Democrats-- Steve Israel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, John Barrow, Scott Peters, Kyrsten Sinema, Steny Hoyer, Joe Crowley, Patrick Murphy, Henry Cuellar… voting YES. And, once again, we saw the contrast in New Hampshire, where the progressive, Carol Shea-Porter, voted against this foolish and dangerous policy and the clueless conservative New Dem, Ann Kuster, betrayed her constituents and voted for it.

The Republican Party Still Exists In New York-- But Just Barely

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-Brooklyn)

I'm from Brooklyn. I went to PS-197 and then James Madison High School. So did Ken-- not to mention Bernie Sanders, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Chuck Schumer and… Norm Coleman. When Ken, Chuck and I were kids, the congressman was the dean of the House Dems, Emanuel Celler, who served from 1923 to 1973. [An opponent of civil rights he was finally defeated in a primary by a more progressive Democrat, Elizabeth Holtzman. She went to Lincoln, the next high school over.] But when I was growing up I remember there were always Republicans who ran against Celler. You never heard of any of them and every other fall they would have their posters on telephone polls for a few weeks and then you would never hear from any of them again.

1962- Emanuel Celler (D)- 81.0%
Seymour Besunder (R)- 19.0%

1964- Emanuel Celler (D)- 87.5%
Samuel Held (R)- 12.5%

1966- Emanuel Celler (D)- 82.1%
Erwin Rosenberg (R)- 17.9%

1968- Emanuel Celler (D)- 70.5%
Frank Martano (R)- 29.5%

By the next election, I was living in a remote village in Afghanistan. Today, that area of Brooklyn is part of the 9th CD, Yvette Clark's district, a district with an African-American majority. I only remember half a dozen African-American kids at Madison when I was there. The 9th now includes Prospect Park, Crown Heights, Brownsville, Park Slope, Flatbush, Midwood, and Sheepshead Bay. In 2012 President Obama beat Mitt Romney 202,361 (85%) to 33,045 (14%). The PVI is D+32, tied for the 14th bluest district with John Lewis' 5th CD in Atlanta and Janice Hahn's 44th CD in Los Angeles. There are five New York City districts even bluer than Clarke's:

• NY-15 (South Bronx)- Jose Serrano- D+43
• NY-13 (Harlem and Upper Manhattan)- Charlie Rangel- D+42
• NY-05 (Southeast Queens)- Gregory Meeks- D+35
• NY-08 (Bedford-Stuyvesant)- Hakeem Jeffries- D+34
• NY-07 (Lower East Side, Chinatown, Bushwick, Cypress Hills)- Nydia Velazquez- D+34

Yvette Clarke had a Republican opponent in 2012, Daniel Cavanaugh. He did even worse than Romney-- 11%. He's running again this year but the Republicans didn't even bother to endorse him. He's running on the Conservative Party line. And the 9th isn't the only district where the Republicans have just given up and ceded the right to the Conservative Party.

In 2012, the GOP ran Frank Della Valle against Serrano. Serrano beat him handily-- 152,661 (97%) to 4,427 (3%)-- the same outcome we saw that district deliver in the presidential race! It was Romney's worst-performing district in America. The last Republican to carry the Bronx was Calvin Coolidge in 1924. I wonder if Ted Cruz will do even worse than Romney. The Republicans aren't running a candidate against Serrano this year. The Conservative Party is running someone named Eduardo Ramirez.

Although Rangel has 3 Democratic primary opponents and a Green and a Working Families Party general election opponents in November, neither the Republicans nor even the Conservatives are bothering to go through the motions in 2014. Their 2012 nominee, Craig Schley, only managed to get 6%. Now that they've rebranded, some people though they might mount a real candidate but… well not even the Republican Party believes all that rebranding claptrap.

Gregory Meeks, a worthless New Dem who totally sells his Jamaica, Ozone Park, Richmond Hill and Rockaway constituents out on a regular basis, faces a primary from Joseph Marthone but no Republican or Conservative. Why bother? Meeks supports them more than they could ever expect from someone in a district like his!

Hakeem Jeffries' 2012 Republican opponent, Alan Bellone, got 9% of the vote. The Brooklyn GOP decided to handle it the same way they're handling the Yvette Clarke race-- by leaving it to the Conservative Party. Bellone will appear again this year, but on the Conservative line, not the Republican line, which will be empty.

The only exception in these half dozen super-blue districts is in Nydia Velazquez's 7th CD, where she beat her GOP opponent 95-5% in 2012. This time the GOP is running Jose Luis Fernandez and the Conservative Party is running Allan Romaguera.

Republicans have virtually no serious candidates in any of the Democratic-held seats in New York State. And in 9 of the state's 27 districts that don't even an unserious candidate. Democrats are targeting 3 Republicans: Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm in Staten Island, Tom Reed in the Southern Tier/Finger Lakes district and Chris Gibson in the northern Hudson Valley and there is just one Republican seat that is going without at least a Democratic candidate: NY-22 (Utica and Binghampton), where Richard Hanna has 2 Tea Party primary opponents. The Democrats could have done a better job by going after Hanna as well as Peter King and by recruiting better candidates against Grimm and Gibson. But the Republicans… they're barely a party in New York State anymore.

The last U.S. Senator elected in New York was Al D'Amato in 1992. Since Nelson Rockefeller died schtuping his 25 year old mistress in 1973, the Republicans have only elected one governor, George Pataki. In fact, the last GOP candidate for governor, Carl Paladino took only 33.3% of the vote and lost all but 13 of New York's 62 counties. This year they failed to recruit a serious candidate and will be running Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino, who is unlikely to do even as "well" as Paladino! No one even wanted to run under him as Lieutenant Governor-- so they have no candidate-- and all the other statewide candidates are considered not serious contenders. In the future there will be a competent DCCC and the GOPs 6 congressional seats could be reduced to one seat in two well-planned cycles, ending the careers of Peter King, Michael Grimm, Chris Gibson, Richard Hanna, and, if he survives this year, Tom Reed.


EASTER SUNDAY SCHEDULE NOTE FROM KEN

Coming up at 5pm ET/2pm PT: a special Resurrection Edition of Sunday Classics.

#

Right-Wing Immigration Policy: Quick Pull Up The Ladder!

Yesterday's Guardian reported that Alabama Republicans, in control of the state legislature and governorship for the first time in 136 years, passed the toughest illegal immigration law in the U.S., tougher than the law everyone was so appalled by that Arizona passed. Republicans in right-wing bastions like Utah, Indiana and Georgia have passed similar laws. (Georgia's agricultural sector, heavily dependent on migrant farm workers, is already in turmoil.)

The crackdown will require public schools to determine the immigration status of students – an aspect not covered in an Arizona law that has been at the forefront of attempts by several US states to crack down on illegal immigrants.

Under the Alabama law, police must detain someone they suspect of being in the country illegally if the person cannot produce proper documentation when stopped for any reason.

It also will be a crime to knowingly transport or harbour someone who is in the country illegally. The law imposes penalties on businesses that knowingly employ someone without legal resident status, and business licences could be suspended or revoked.

Backward, reactionary parts of the country, like Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Utah and Arizona have always feared change and always been virulently anti-immigrant-- no matter what group the immigrant was from. The Know Nothing mentality has been, historically, anti-Irish, anti-German, anti-Catholic, anti-Slav, anti-Italian, anti-Asian, anti-Jewish. In 1924 Republicans passed a bigoted immigration law, gleefully signed by racist Calvin Coolidge, targeting "inferior groups." A quota for Italians, for example, was reduced from 42,000 a year to 4,000. One has to wonder how prominent Italian-American Republican immigrant haters like Tom Tancredo (CO), Lou Barletta (PA), Rick Santorum (PA), Steve Palazzo (MS), John Barrasso (WY), and John Mica (FL) deal with the collective memory.

As we've been seeing in The Nazi Hydra in America, the Republican Party, conniving with Hitler's government in Germany, played up this fear and hatred of foreigners-- especially Jews-- in the 1930s to sow discord in America.

To understand how the Republican Party could run election campaigns based on intense and vicious racist platforms; one needs to understand the attitude of the country towards Jews at the time. A few days after Kristallnacht, Roosevelt spoke out publicly expressing his anger and horror. A Gallup poll that month revealed that 94% of the people disapproved of the Nazi treatment of Jews, but 97% of the people also disapproved of the way Nazis treated Catholics. A Roper poll that same month revealed the deep anti-Semitic views in America. The poll found that only 39% of the people believed that Jews should be treated as everyone else, 53% believed that Jews were different and should be restricted, and 10% believed Jews should be deported. In the winter of 1938-1939, many had denounced helping "refu-Jews." Polls revealed 71-85% opposed increasing immigration quotes; 67% opposed admitting any refugees and 67% opposed a one-time admission of 10,000 refugee children.

Turning away the refugees aboard the St. Louis was a low point in the Roosevelt administration and perhaps indefensible in light of the Holocaust, but Roosevelt hardly acted in a vacuum. The public opinion was decidedly against admitting Jews. One can only guess at how much of the anti-Semitism prevalent at the time, was the direct result of the various anti-Semitic campaigns conducted by the Republican Party. It could not be a minor factor, as many of these anti-Semitic campaigns ran by Republicans equated Judaism with communism, as in the example of the 1938 Minnesota election.

Today Know Nothing Republicans like Sarah Palin can wear a Star of David while visiting New York City or a deranged bigot like Michele Bachmann can campaign against Barack Obama based on supposed love and devotion to a right-wing vision of a militaristic Jewish state. It may take some time, but in just a few generations, right-wing Republican hatred for Latinos will go from a high boil to a low simmer. Yesterday Congresswoman Yvette Clarke of Brooklyn released the following statement: "I am deeply saddened and disappointed that the Governor of Alabama has decided to enact such egregious anti-immigrant provisions in order to address our broken immigration system. Using our nation’s education system as a conduit to enforce immigration laws is highly inappropriate. It is my concern, that this will spread fear among students, hindering them from pursuing an education. Ever since the state of Arizona has enacted its harsh immigration laws, many states have followed suit, enacting provisions that often time over step their jurisdiction. This is a clear indication that our nation needs to address Comprehensive Immigration Reform at the federal level. Our national security is at stake; our moral standing in the world depends on it; and the American people, many of whom are first and second generation immigrants, demand it.” I'm sure you can guess why I want you to listen to Pete Seeger... keep listening:

You Had To Have Been Blind Not To Have Seen Obama's Bad Deal With The Republicans Coming Down The Pike

Last night-- technically this morning-- that last act in Boehner's little drama (or Boehner and Obama's little kabuki) played out when the House passed a stopgap appropriations motion while they implement The Deal.

The budget debate was fought entirely on GOP turf, shifting the “center” way over to the right. Indeed, for all the talk about conservatives wanting more out of this deal, the simple truth is that this battle was fought almost entirely on their terms. By agreeing to steep, if temporary, cuts in advance, Dems acceded to the GOP’s austerity/cut-cut-cut frame at the very outset, and the debate unfolded entirely on that rhetorical turf.

President Obama’s advisers apparently believe that his best route to reelection is to acknowledge the need for more fiscal discipline, while picking a fight with the GOP over the need for targeted government investment in our future and painting the GOP’s cut-at-all-costs vision as out of the mainstream. In fairness, his advisers, as Paul Krugman noted recently, may very well be right about this.

But it’s still worth appreciating how far to the right the debate has shifted, in part because of Democratic acquiescence. The idea that government spending should be a job-creation tool in our arsenal was entirely marginalized, to the point that it was simply not part of the discussions; meanwhile, the insane conservative demand for $100 billion in cuts was treated as a kind of outer right-wing boundary of legitimate discourse. The result: Giving Boehner more than he originally asked for in cuts became the stuff of middle ground compromise.

It passed 40 minutes late, 348-70. 208 Republicans plus 140 Democrats probably guaranteeing a double-dip recession. For 28 radical right nihilists-- your Bachmanns, Gohmerts, Brouns, Chaffetzes... Joe "You Lie" Wilson, that crowd-- the cutbacks weren't severe enough; they voted NO. 42 Democrats also voted NO. Like Anthony Weiner (D-NY).


And, as Digby just pointed out this morning, the process left the Republicans stronger and united, not downhearted and in disarray, the way the Democrats are. "The Tea Party," she writes, "is just another word for 'conservative Republican.' Boehner used them, they didn't use him. A good leader knows how to manage expectations and Boehner turns out to be very good at it. He came in with a low number, then 'capitulated' to his base and raised it over and over again. He couldn't quite come through on getting rid of funding for cervical cancer screening and birth control (Tea Party priorities, apparently) but promised to bring it up again and again in the endless budget battles to come. What's not to like? And this is enough to make them giddy-- and is, after all, the whole point: The agreement would cut about $38 billion from the 2010 budget baseline and $78.5 billion from President Obama's 2011 budget proposal."

The Democrats who voted against the kabuki-compromise, by and large, come from working class districts and represent working class sensibilities. Although trusted figures, like Donna Edwards (who represents a district with a higher proportion of government employees than any in the country) and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raúl Grijalva, voted to avert a shutdown, the 42 Democrats who voted against Obama felt they could not go along with the wrenching cuts and that giving in to Republican hostage-taking would just embolden them in the future in their battles to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. Tammy Baldwin represents Madison, Wisconsin, where the American spirit happens to be highest of anywhere in the country fright now. She voted NO. Before we look at the NO votes, here's Raúl's statement right after he voted YES:

“I was glad to get the call to cast this vote, and I’m glad the government will continue normal operations. A shutdown would do drastic, immediate damage to our national economy and federal work force. No amount of ideological posturing is worth the pain it would have caused, and Congress is right to pass this budget resolution.
 
This process has been marked by House Republicans’ refusal to negotiate in good faith, and our government should never be brought to the edge of a shutdown for partisan reasons. Rather than laying out a reasonable position and compromising for the good of the country, Speaker Boehner spent weeks posturing for the benefit of his Tea Party base and refused Democratic offers that went beyond his demands. Threatening hundreds of thousands of working Americans with furloughs to make a political point is not leadership. The country deserves more.
 
This kind of brinksmanship is hardly inspiring, and while I cast my vote tonight to keep the government running until next Thursday, I am reserving judgment on any longer-term deal until the full details emerge. I regret that this vote was not on a full six-month proposal, because short-term resolutions are a poor way to run a government. I look forward to a more reasonable conversation in the coming days about a long-term deal than the conversation that took place over this last week.”

New York City progressives didn't see it the same way. Joining Weiner were Eliot Engel, Yvette Clarke, Carolyn Maloney, Greg Meeks, Jerry Nadler, Charlie Rangel, José Serrano and Edolphus Towns, a cross section of the base Obama has completely abandoned. Other high profile progressives voting NO included John Lewis, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Barbara Lee, George Miller, John Larson (Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus), Jim McDermott, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Mike Capuano... a pantheon of progressive superstars. And Jackson was only one of the Chicago congressmen voting against Obama's ill-defined strategy of appeasement. Bobby Rush and Luis Guitierrez couldn't stick with him this time. Many of the Represenetatives who voted NO, did some with some reluctance. Brooklyn's Yvette Clarke sounded downright conflicted in her official statement:

“I applaud Senate Leader Harry Reid and President Obama for their perseverance and unyielding resolve to make sure that a deal was reached. However, after reviewing the bill that was passed by the Senate, there are some cuts in this legislation that negatively impact my constituents. It would be irresponsible for me to vote for this bill. 

“I think that it is important to point out that the long and arduous process of getting to this agreement, unfortunately, is only a foreshadowing of the many fights that lie ahead as we move forward to address our nation’s budget deficit. I will continue to fight to ensure that Congress can get on with the work of the American people and focus on jobs.”

I watched Eliot Engel on CNN last night explaining that he couldn't vote for the compromise. I can't find a clip of it but here's the statement from his website:

The Republicans insist on arbitrarily cutting the budget in the mistaken belief this will magically boost the economy. I cannot support this agreement because $39 billion in cuts is too deep. Well, I don’t believe in the tooth fairy, and I don’t believe in magic either. They give no factual basis that these cuts will do anything but harm the economy. Coming at a time when our economy is so fragile, cuts of this magnitude will have an adverse effect on job creation.

We didn’t get into this deficit hole overnight, and it’s wrong to think we can get out of it just as quickly. In the 12 years they controlled the Congress, six of which they also controlled the Presidency, they ran up massive deficits with huge tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Today, they have reversed course and become born-again deficit hawks. We must work together to get out of the hole that both parties dug us into. No one can take a "no compromise" approach to fixing our fiscal problems. I understand that, and want to work together to get it done.

But tonight’s spending bill slashes too much without taking into account the harm this will do to our fragile recovery, to the middle class, to working people, and to our neediest citizens. I cannot support such a measure. While it is beneficial to avoid a government shutdown, a deal for the sake of making a deal is often a bad one. The one good thing about this agreement is that it includes provisions to pay our military and their families. They make many sacrifices for their country, this should not be one of them.

 
Barbara Lee made a similar statement a few minutes ago:

"I am relieved that a government shutdown was averted tonight, but I am disappointed with the continued Republican efforts to strip funding for critical programs and services that millions of people depend on.  Republicans want to finance their unpaid-for tax breaks for the wealthy on the backs of our most vulnerable populations and underserved communities.  I cannot support this continuing resolution that will negatively impact millions of our most vulnerable populations: low- and middle-income people, the needy and the poor.

"It is also extremely disappointing that Republicans took our government to the brink of a costly shutdown all for the sake of preventing women from accessing critical health services like breast exams, prenatal care and birth control.  Republicans should stop trying to block women from getting the health care that they need and work with Democrats to craft a common-sense bill to fund our government. 

"As an appropriator, I will work to restore these egregious Republican cuts so that we have a budget that creates jobs, fosters new economic opportunities and provides pathways out of poverty."

The cuts are egregious but are they Republican? What makes them Republican when Obama was celebrating them and when almost all the Democrats voted for them? Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben treads where Barbara can't: Our Lives Are Under Threat From Some of the Most Powerful and Richest Entities -- Here's How We Can Fight Back and Win. "We need to rebuild the kind of mass movement that marked 1970: bodies, passion, and creativity are the currencies we can compete in. It's not impossible." I wonder if the billions being taken out of the budget will include the billions the U.S. taxpayers are supposed to guarantee Tokyo Electric Power to build a couple of nuclear plants in Texas. Greg Palast: "The Administration, just months ago, asked Congress to provide a $4 billion loan guarantee for two new nuclear reactors to be built and operated on the Gulf Coast of Texas-- by Tokyo Electric Power and local partners. As if the Gulf hasn't suffered enough... Now be afraid. Obama's $4 billion bail-out-in-the-making is called the South Texas Project. It's been sold as a red-white-and-blue way to make power domestically with a reactor from Westinghouse, a great American brand. However, the reactor will be made substantially in Japan by the company that bought the US brand name, Westinghouse-- Toshiba... The Obama Administration is planning a total of $56 billion in loans for nuclear reactors all over America."