Pelosi's Jihad Against Progressive Ideas And Progressive Leaders

I've been talking to an increasing number of progressive candidates for Congress who have told me that they have no intention of voting for Pelosi as speaker in 2021. Flagstaff progressive and AZ-01 congressional candidate Eva Putzova head it right on the head: "If we are going to address climate and healthcare crises and inequality, we need leaders who understand that yesterday's politics won't work. When elected I will support a leader who is not out of touch with working class people's struggles and who can see how visionary the Green New Deal and Medicare for All are. Speaker Pelosi who publicly campaigns for my opponent (who voted with Trump nearly 60 percent of the time in the 2017-2018 cycle) fails to see what my generation will no longer tolerate: lack of political courage."

In the past it has always been Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party who have tried to depose Pelosi. She has been protected from being ousted by progressives. Now-- with her stands against the popular progressive agenda-- she will not only not be able to count on progressives to save her, she will find many of the progressive challengers being undermined by her DCCC looking for an alternative candidate. One, for example, told me she's already talking with other Democrats about replacing Pelosi with Pramila Jayapal. "Had AOC introduced the Green New Deal resolution while Boehner or Ryan was speaker," one candidate in the middle of the Blue America vetting process told me, "they would have bottled it up in committee and let it die there. That's exactly what Pelosi has done."

Pramila Jayapal introduced Medicare-for-All last February. Pelosi has that bottled up in committee to-- in committees chaired by her corrupt conservative posse who will absolutely not allow it to pass. Jayapal now has 118 co-sponsors, the most recent being Hakeem Jeffries, who Pelosi is grooming to take over for her eventually. Many progressives fear, the Green New Deal and Medicare for All will never even get votes while Pelosi is speaker. Shan Chowdhury is running for a seat held by crooked Pelosi ally and Queens political boss Gregory Meeks. Meeks does whatever Pelosi tells him to do; Shan is a different kind of leader. "We could use a breath of fresh air," he told me. "The premise for her tenure as the speaker has come and gone. With every challenge working people are facing today, we need leaders who will align with the values that can help us move in the right direction. A leader who will set the the example by not taking any corporate money, sees the healthcare is a human right for all, and will be bold on supporting the Green New Deal." To see the growing list of progressive candidates Pelosi's DCCC is sabotaging, clock on the 2020 congressional thermometer on the right.

She did an interview with Bloomberg News yesterday and the take-away was her disdain for Medicare-for-All. As Sahil Kapur reported yesterday, there was even worse than that in the interview. She was chastising Democratic candidates for the presidency-- particularly Bernie and Elizabeth-- that "those liberal ideas that fire up the party’s base are a big loser when it comes to beating President Donald Trump." THat's what's wrong with Pelosi-- she doesn't believe in Democratic values any longer. The American people have moved in a progressive direction at the same time she was moving in a neo-liberal direction. She's now so out of touch with America that she's endangering the party itself. The only politician in America more hated than Pelosi is Moscow Mitch.

Proposals pushed by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders like Medicare for All and a wealth tax play well in liberal enclaves like her own district in San Francisco but won’t sell in the Midwestern states that sent Trump to the White House in 2016, she said.

“What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan,” Pelosi said at a roundtable of Bloomberg News reporters and editors on Friday. “What works in Michigan works in San Francisco-- talking about workers’ rights and sharing prosperity.”

“Remember November,” she said. “You must win the Electoral College.”

Pelosi was careful not to back any one candidate in the party’s contentious presidential contest, but didn’t hold back when asked about which ideas should-- and shouldn’t-- form the party’s case to American voters. Or about her fears that candidates like Warren and Sanders are going down the wrong track by courting only fellow progressives – and not the middle-of-the-road voters Democrats need to win back from Trump.



This is familiar ground for Pelosi, who has spent the year tussling with the “Squad,” a vanguard of liberal newcomers to the House led by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

“As a left-wing San Francisco liberal I can say to these people: What are you thinking?” Pelosi said. “You can ask the left-- they’re unhappy with me for not being a socialist.”

Polling has consistently shown the Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, and a wealth tax on multimillionaires (like Pelosi, whose net worth is over $120 million) are hugely popular across the country. And Pelosi hasn't been a "left-wing San Francisco liberal" in decades and is best described today as a middle of the road partisan hack and neo-liberal from a San Francisco that is barely recognizable to people who lived there when Pelosi was first elected to Congress in the 1980s. "Her call for caution," wrote Kapur, "is backed by the authority she carries as a giant of Democratic politics who rose from the left wing of the party to become the first female speaker of the House and has earned grudging praise from her foes for her skill as a legislator. She spoke as polls show a significant tightening of the race with Warren edging up on Joe Biden at the top of the field. A New York Times/Siena College survey of Iowa Democrats released Friday showed the top four candidates-- Warren, Sanders, Biden and Pete Buttigieg-- all bunched up in a five-point spread at the top of the field." He asserted that her line reflects that of many other geriatric leaders like Pelosi as well as the special interest donors who have funded her career and who have always and will always "believe that left-wing policies will alienate swing voters and lead to defeat."

Warren and Sanders are betting on a different theory-- that voters who float between parties are less ideological and can be inspired to vote for candidates who represent bold new change in Washington.

Pelosi said Democrats should seek to build on President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act instead of pushing ahead with the more sweeping Medicare for All plan favored by Warren and Sanders that would create a government-run health care system and abolish private insurance.

“Protect the Affordable Care Act-- I think that’s the path to health care for all Americans. Medicare For All has its complications,” Pelosi said, adding that “the Affordable Care Act is a better benefit than Medicare.”

Warren has been under pressure from Biden and other candidates to demonstrate that her plan wouldn’t require tax increases on middle-class Americans.

On Friday, her campaign said it would cost $20.5 trillion and would be funded by raising taxes on large corporations and the wealthy, cracking down on tax evasion, reducing defense spending and putting newly legalized immigrants on the tax rolls. The Biden campaign called that plan “mathematical gymnastics” intended to hide the fact that it would result in higher taxes for the middle class.

Warren swatted back at the criticism, accusing Biden of “running in the wrong presidential primary.”

“Democrats are not going to win by repeating Republican talking points,” the Massachusetts senator said in Des Moines, Iowa. “So, if Biden doesn’t like that, I’m just not sure where he’s going.”

Pelosi also expressed worries about voters’ reactions to the Green New Deal, which Sanders and Warren also support, that calls for radical, rapid reductions in carbon emissions. “There’s very strong opposition on the labor side to the Green New Deal because it’s like 10 years, no more fossil fuel. Really?” she said.

Pelosi said Democrats must stick with pay-as-you-go rules to avoid adding to the debt, a point of contention with left-leaning figures who want to permit more deficit spending for ambitious liberal priorities.

“We cannot just keep increasing the debt,” she said [sounding far more like Herbert Hoover than Franklin Roosevelt].

Pelosi added that she doesn’t understand the race to the left among some candidates, because “Bernie and Elizabeth own the left, right? Is anybody going to out-left them?”

She stopped short of endorsing a tax on wealth, an idea that Warren and Sanders have embraced as a means to reduce income inequality and expand the safety net. The speaker said she wants “bipartisan” tax changes that lower the debt and fix the “dumb” Republican tax cuts of 2017.

She also steered clear of backing a cap on pay for chief executive officers.

Pelosi is living in a different political reality. It pains me to say it but she's old and increasingly senile

Will County progressive and congressional candidate Rachel Ventura (IL-11) reminded us last night that "We are living through a period of American history that is facing enormous challenges, the most pressing of course is the climate crisis. These unprecedented challenges require bold, visionary leadership that is willing and able to steer the ship in the right direction. We don't know who will be running for Speaker of the House, but my obvious hope is that there is a progressive choice or a coalition of new leaders. I will work with the Progressive Caucus and the Squad to position ourselves strategically to be in the best position possible to pass a progressive agenda. For the time being it is important that we get as many progressives into Congress along with a progressive president."

Friday night at the big Democratic Party rally in Iowa, Elizabeth Warren shredded Mayo Pete-- a real Pelosi-kind of candidate-- without mentioning his name: "I'm not running some consultant-driven campaign with some vague ideas that are designed not to offend anyone" and went on to also cut down the other Pelosi fave, Status Quo Joe, saying Biden thinks "running some vague campaign that nibbles around the edges is somehow safe, but if the most we can promise is business as usual after Donald Trump, then Democrats will lose."

The newest polling from YouGov for The Economist asks registered voters if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of various American politicians. Pelosi faired extremely poorly.

• Pelosi-- favorable-38% ; unfavorable- 47%
• Trump-- favorable- 40%; unfavorable- 54%
• Bernie-- favorable- 40%; unfavorable- 46%
• Elizabeth-- favorable- 40%; unfavorable- 42%
• Status Quo Joe-- favorable- 39%; unfavorable- 47%
• Mayo Pete-- favorable- 34%; unfavorable- 35%
• Schumer-- favorable- 31%; unfavorable- 42%
• Moscow Mitch-- favorable- 26%; unfavorable- 49%
• Pence-- favorable- 37%; unfavorable- 48%

So that's 47% for the 2 progressives and 37% for the 3 conservatives

First Votes Of the 116th Congress

First came the vote for Speaker. Pelosi, the lesser evil got 220 votes and Kevin McCarthy, the greater evil not 192 votes. That leaves 22 members of Congress who voted for neither. A man who can't wait to prove he's the biggest moron in the new Congress, aggressively reactionary Blue Dog Jeff Van Drew (NJ), shouted out "NO," which doesn't mean anything in this instance. But I'm sure it felt good and will get him some points from his benefactors at the NRA. Eventually the House Clerk counted Van Drew as a "Present" like two other dips hits, Jim Cooper, the Nashville Blue Dog, and Michigan New Dem Elissa Slotkin, off to a short, brutish congressional career.

But the biggest number of protest votes went to the Nazi Party candidate, Jim Jordan of the infamous Ohio bund. Who found McCarthy not right-wing enough? Herr Biggs (AZ), Herr Gosar (AZ), Herr Hice (GA), Herr Perry (PA) und Herr Massie (KY). Blue Dog Cheri Bustos came in next with 4 votes, two from the two worst freshmen in the class, racist Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA) and Wall Street's top new congressional puppet Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ). They were joined by 2 other freshmen, Joe Cunningham (D-SC) and Jared Golden (D-ME). Two other putrid freshmen, Jason Crow (New Dem-CO) and Staten Island's Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY), voted for Senator Tammy Heidi-- lame military connection.

Libertarian Justin Amash (R-MI) voted for Herr Massie. NRA-delegate Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY) voted for someone whose record of destroying working families he no doubt hopes to emulate, Joe Biden. Wall Street's Ron Kind (New Dem-WI) voted for John Lewis. Another very right-wing Democrat (and political coward), Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania, voted for some Kennedy. Utah crackpot wing-nut Ben McAdams voted for a Murphy, presumably the corrupt and lazy New Dem chair, Stephanie Murphy. Worthless Blue Dog Kurt Schrader (OR) must think he proved he's not a racist by voting for Marcia Fudge. Turd-ball Kathleen Rice, who's being primaried in 2020, went him one better by voting for Stacey Abrams after she was told it wasn't good form to vote for herself. Walter Jones (R-NC) was smart enough to avoid the whole scene entirely.

And then came the first substantive vote for all these new freshmen-- the rules package with Pelosi's potentially-catastrophic Pay-Go in it. It passed 234-197, appearing like a standard party-line vote. But not quite. Three "Problem Solver" Republicans-- Tom Reed (NY), John Katko (NY) and Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) voted with the Democrats-- but, more importantly, three Democrats had the guts and heart and dignity to oppose it... despite a barrage of lies from Hoyer claiming it is somehow a "progressive" rule. The three Democrats who did us proud last night:

• Ro Khanna (D-CA)
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)
• Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)

One last thing about this. When I was talking to members for the last few days, begging them to think twice before voting for PAY-GO, they mostly poo-poo-ed my concerns, telling me that Hoyer's team had assured them it didn't matter and that it was a minor thing. Really? Minor? Is that why Pelosi included it in the three top things she wanted to get done in 2019, along with healthcare? I have a feeling this is going to be a very disappointing Congress.

Oh God! A Speaker From Brooklyn?

Manny and Hakeem

The way Brooklyn was divided up into congressional districts when I was growing up was different back then. I mostly grew up on East 16th street and Avenue P, the exact border (depending on which side of the street you lived) between what is now Yvette Clarke's 9th district and Dan Donovan's/Max Rose's 11th district and then in Atlantic Towers in Sheepshead Bay, where, today Hakeen Jeffries 8th district meets Yvette Clarke's 9th. Back in the day, it was all Manny Celler's district. Celler's was a legendary figure who, when he died in 1981 (age 92-- born in 1888), the NY Times called "one of the most influential New Yorkers who ever served in the House." He served during the administrations of 7 presidents starting with Warren G. Harding. Over the course of his 50 years in Congress his district was numbered and renumbered NY-10, NY-15, NY-11, NY-10 again and finally, NY-16. But it was always, basically, the most Jewish and most liberal part of Brooklyn.

His first blockbuster move in the House-- in 1924-- was to lead the opposition to an ugly xenophobic immigration bill proposed by Rep. Albert Johnson (R-WA) and Senator David Reed (R-PA) that sought to severely limit the number of Jews, Italians, Greeks, Poles, Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, Bulgarians, Serbians, Ukrainians, Muslims, Japanese, Koreans and Chinese immigrants and to deport large numbers who were already in the U.S. Despite Celler's strenuous efforts, H.R. 7995 passed the House, 323-71, and was signed by Calvin Coolidge on May 24, 1924. It wasn't until 1952 and 1965 that these restricts were eased. During World War II, Celler led the fight to force FDR to relax the restricts on refugees fleeing the Nazi Holocaust.

In 1950 Celler was the lead House sponsor of Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver's bill to strengthen anti-trust legislation and protect consumers from monopolies. At the same time, he was one of the only members of Congress willing to take on McCarthyism. "Deliberately and calculatedly, McCarthyism has set before itself the task of undermining the faith of the people in their Government," he thundered at the 1952 Democratic National Convention. "It has undertaken to sow suspicion everywhere, to set friend against friend and brother against brother. It deals in coercion and in intimidation, tying the hands of citizens and officials with the fear of the smear attack."

As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee from 1949 to 1973 (except for a brief break in 1952 when the GOP controlled the House for 2 years), Celler was involved in drafting and passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1965, he proposed the 25th Amendment, which might help us get rid of Trump. 50 years in Congress... a stunning record of accomplishment and no talk of any advancement beyond that.

I want to compare that to someone who sits in part of his seat now, 48 year old Hakeem Jeffries, basically an unaccomplished political hack and self-promoter who lost his first race after accusing his opponent, Assemblyman Roger Green, of being a Muslim. Six years later, in 2006, Green retired and Jeffries grabbed the seat. In 2012 he decided to take on corrupt Congressman Edolphus Towns but Towns announced his retirement instead and Jeffries beat a more progressive city councilman, Charles Barron, in the primary-- spreading around talking points that he was the "Barack Obama of Brooklyn" and that Barron was anti-Semitic and would not protect Israel. Jeffries was heavily supported by Wall Street banksters, hedge fund managers and charter school interests, refused to debate and went on to win the seat. [So far Jeffries has taken $982,984 from the financial sector. 48.71% of his campaign cash comes from PACs and only 1.28% from small individual contributors.]

He's generally considered a Wall Street Democrat and an AIPAC Democrat and he successfully got himself labeled a "rising star." On November 28 he celebrated the dubious distinction of defeating-- with the help of conservative Democrats-- Barbara Lee to become Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, following in the footsteps on another corrupt Wall Street shill, Joe Crowley, widely touted as the "next Speaker" until Alexandria Ocasio defeated him in a primary earlier this year. And now he's spreading the word that he's the "next Speaker." Politico, of course, bit-- hook, line and sinker: ‘What Obama had, he has that’: Jeffries’ stock rises as Pelosi successor. Heather Caygle, Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan reported that Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA), one of the most corrupt and conservative Democrats in Congress and a Jeffries backer, crowed after Jeffries beat Barbara Lee that "What Obama had, he has that. I call it lightning in a bottle. I do think he’s somebody that could, with a few breaks, become our speaker and also our president. He has that talent." Vargas-- who was considered the worst member of the California legislature when state Dems backed his congressional bid to get him out of Sacramento-- wouldn't recognize talent if it bit him in the ass.

More than a few Democrats see Jeffries’ youth and Brooklyn swagger-- he’s been known to quote rapper Biggie Smalls on the House floor-- as the antidote for a caucus long ruled by a pack of old-school septuagenarians. But the speakership is far from guaranteed.

With Nancy Pelosi’s grip on the gavel likely secure for at least the next two years, Jeffries, 48, would first have to elbow aside others on a leadership team that’s suddenly brimming with young upstarts. He also must navigate some of the same land mines that tripped up his fellow New Yorker, outgoing Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley.

Crowley, too, was often whispered about as the heir apparent to Pelosi’s throne. That is, until he was ousted in a primary upset by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in June. And now Ocasio-Cortez reportedly has Jeffries in her cross hairs, as she and some of her liberal allies consider trying to take him out in 2020.

Caygle, Bade and Bresnahan laughably construct a future race for Speaker as one being between conservative "rising stars" Ben Ray Luján (NM), crediting him with winning the 2018 midterms, Blue Dog Cheri Bustos, a Rahm Emanuel protégé, who has never accomplished anything and progressives Katherine Clark (MA) and David Cicilline (RI), a good voter but, unfortunately, a bit of a stiff, who may have trouble holding onto his seat after Rhode Island loses one of its two House seats in 2022.

“In terms of whether or not I am as progressive as Barbara Lee, I plead guilty as charged,” Jeffries said. “Neither are 434 members of the United States House of Representatives.”

Jeffries pointed to his voting record to push back on the notion that he’s a moderate in any sense of the word: “My record, based on what outside groups have determined to be the case, places me squarely within the top 25 most progressive members of the United States Congress. The record speaks for itself.”

Jeffries has supporters at the ready to fight for him. After Politico reported that Ocasio-Cortez and leaders of the progressive Justice Democrats were toying with the idea of supporting a primary challenger to Jeffries, multiple lawmakers came to his defense.

“[S]he’s helping stir enthusiasm for the domestic agenda that’s really been blocked for years by Republican leadership, but the reality is these are the same policies that my best friend Congressman Jeffries has been a leader on for years,” Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana said of Ocasio-Cortez. “She has been rightly calling for people to give her a chance, not to prejudge her leadership and potential. I hope that she gives the same courtesy to Congressman Jeffries.”

Added New York Rep. Kathleen Rice [another corrupt Wall Street New Dem]: “This whole concept of ‘if you do not subscribe to the 15 principles of the Justice Democrats, you’re not a Democrat,’ it flies in the face of what I think is the best thing about the Democratic Party, which is we are truly a big tent party.”

Jeffries’ allies also argue that just because he’s an effective legislator doesn’t mean he’s not a true-blue progressive. Jeffries has had seven bills passed in a GOP-controlled House, four enacted into law. That record, they say, shows he knows how to get things done.

...Jeffries credits House Democrats’ romp to winning 40 new seats on election night to a strategy he, Bustos and Cicilline crafted as co-chairs of House Democrats’ communications arm: ignoring Trump and adopting a tunnel-vision focus on pocketbook issues, including protecting people with pre-existing medical conditions and hammering the GOP’s “tax scam.”

Throughout the campaign cycle, the trio reminded lawmakers on a weekly basis to stay on message, even printing little note cards displaying their talking points to reinforce that strategy.

“Now this so-called tax cut is more unpopular than tax increases that have been enacted by the United States Congress!” Jeffries boasted. “We lost the legislative battle. We won the messaging war.”

But it’s more than just a having a simple message. Jeffries says Democrats have to avoid getting in the mud with Trump when he goads them.

“Trump is Trump, but you have to make a strategic decision. Are you going to take the bait or not?” he said. “Don’t take the bait. Don’t take the bait.”

One person unlikely to stand in Jeffries’ way if he ultimately goes for the speaker’s gavel? Clyburn, currently the highest ranking African-American in Congress and a veteran politician who had previously toyed with the idea of running for speaker himself.

“I think that Hakeem Jeffries has everything it takes to be the speaker of the House,” Clyburn said. “I look forward to being around, if not inside the Congress, hopefully from the clubhouse at the Santee Cooper Golf Course when he takes his next step up.”

Jeffries is an avid self-promoter and, basically a follower of the crowd... not a leader. So, of course, don't be surprised that he hasn't signed onto the Green New Deal. I'd be surprised if he even understands what it is, although when most Democrats back it, he will too. There have been 54 House speakers since the office was created in 1789. Two were New Yorkers-- John Taylor (Albany) in 1820 and again in 1825 and Theodore Pomeroy (Syracuse) in 1869-- and none have ever been from Brooklyn, not even the great Manny Celler.

Seth Moulton Had His 5 Minutes

Loser (l) and winner (r)

Tuesday evening, Liz Goodwin, writing for the Boston Globe, speculated that conservative and very ambitious Massachusetts congressman Seth Moulton was playing a risky game against Pelosi. His bid to replace her with a Wall Street-friendly shill "has been brash and bold or reckless and quixotic, depending on your point of view. But what," asked Goodwin, "will it look like if Pelosi regains the gavel? Make that, most likely, when." And, of course, she did win yesterday-- 203-32. The more daunting hurdle she faces is in January "when she likely needs to get 218 votes on the House floor to officially become speaker. That means she can only lose about 17 Democrats and still claim the gavel without some support from GOP members."

Moulton, who’s emerged as the unofficial leader of the group trying to dislodge Pelosi, may find himself in a jam, and perhaps a pariah in the party caucus, if she is able to quell the dissent in her ranks as her allies confidently predict. The question for him isn’t just how defeat will play inside the House but also what it will look like outside the Beltway, where his larger ambitions may well lie.

Much will depend on the tone he sets when this contretemps is done; will he beat a retreat or carry on as a critic? Certainly, the Marine veteran has been aggressive to this point, deploying every weapon in his arsenal against the longtime Democratic leader, prompting blowback from liberal pundits and some of his own constituents. He recruited House candidates who largely repudiated Pelosi on the trail, gathered signatures on a letter opposing her, and went on a media blitz warning of the dangers to Democrats if she’s reelected.

The two have traded barbs, with Moulton saying he was “100 percent” sure she will not be the next speaker and Pelosi dismissing his criticism out of hand. “I will be speaker of the House no matter what Seth Moulton says,” Pelosi told reporters earlier this month.

So far, Pelosi has neutralized opposition to her with carrots, not sticks. She convinced Representative Brian Higgins of New York to remove his name from Moulton’s letter by promising an effort to advance legislation to expand Medicare and by adding several new leadership positions for younger members. Moulton and Pelosi have not reached out to each other to negotiate.

Moulton’s predicament recalls a famous line from the HBO show The Wire: “You come at the king, you best not miss.” With Pelosi firmly in charge as speaker, Moulton could face consequences, from missing out on plum committee assignments to facing stony silence when it comes to his legislative agenda.

While Pelosi has made no sign that she plans to retaliate, there’s a rich tradition of speakers taking revenge on critics. After securing his third term as speaker several years ago, Representative John Boehner of Ohio kicked two Republicans who opposed him off the influential Rules Committee.

For Moulton, it’s the Transportation Committee that beckons. The congressman was the managing director of a high speed rail company before heading to Washington, and he has had his eye on a seat on the committee for several years.

When Representative Mike Capuano lost the primary to incoming Representative Ayanna Pressley earlier this year, Massachusetts lost its seat on the Transportation Committee, opening up a spot.

But that seat is looking like a long shot now that Moulton is the face of the Democratic resistance to Pelosi.

Representative Richard Neal, the dean of the Massachusetts delegation, declined to answer questions about whether Moulton will be considered for the seat through a spokesman.

“I believe it is crucial to have someone from our state serving on that important committee. And I will urge my colleagues in the Democratic leadership to strongly consider this request,” Neal said in a statement.

Moulton already sits on the Armed Services Committee.

But House speakers control far more than committee assignments. With the gavel, Pelosi can decide whom to tap to write bills and amendments, as well as whose reelection coffers get an infusion of party cash.

“If I were him or his staff, I’d be watching over my shoulder in the weeks to come,” said Jim Manley, a former top aide to Senators Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid.

One of Pelosi’s closest allies brushed off the idea she would be concerned with Moulton or any of the other rebels attempting to block her election after she became speaker.

“I don’t think she’s in the business of settling scores,” said Representative Jim McGovern, who is set to become the chair of the Rules Committee. “Nancy Pelosi is about issues and about what’s good for this country.”

Moulton’s allies hope any blowback would be brief.

“He’s going to pay a price for standing up like this, but in the past when there have been these kinds of pushes in the caucus leadership they tend to be forgotten pretty quickly,” said David Gergen, an informal adviser to Moulton.

Gergen added that he doesn’t believe Moulton is interested in pressuring Pelosi on policy issues in the way Tea Party members dogged Republican leadership. Moulton will likely continue making the case that House leadership needs to pass the torch to the next generation, but not remain a thorn in Pelosi’s side on her legislative agenda. “I think they’re fairly close together on policy,” Gergen said of Moulton and Pelosi.

“I believe once this process is over . . . Seth will be an important part of the Democratic caucus,” said Representative John Garamendi of California, who’s running for a leadership spot.

Moulton declined to comment for this article, but he argued in a statement that his push for new leadership has never been personal.

“Leader Pelosi wants to boil this down to a personal argument, but this is so much bigger than her,” he said in a statement. “It’s about the entire, stagnant, three-person leadership team and having a serious conversation about promoting leaders who reflect the future of our caucus.”

In theory, Moulton is right. In reality, he's a rightist. And, besides... you can't replace somebody with nobody. And Moulton never could drum up a candidate willing to run against her-- and knew no one would vote for him aside from freshmen he's given money to. Progressives want someone better than Pelosi; not someone worse. Moulton and his cronies are all worse... much, much worse.

Is Nancy Jacobsen's Problem-Makers Caucus Trying To Deliver Wall Street Nancy Pelosi's Head On A Platter?

The honorable co-chair

The so-called "Problem Solvers Caucus," best known for never having solved a problem, is led by reactionary Wall Street-owned Democrap Josh Gottherimer (Blue Dog-NJ) and mainstream Republican Tom Reed (NY). It is part of Nancy Jacobsen's ultra-corrupt No Labels shit show which is financed by far right corporate interests working to drag the Democratic Party away from any semblance of progressivism. Thankfully, most of their members won't be returning to Congress in January. Most of this batch was defeated or forced to retire to avoid defeat:

• Mike Coffman (R-CO)
• David Young (R-IA)
• Elizabeth Esty (New Dem-CT)
• Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
• Charlie Dent (R-PA)
• Ryan Costello (R-PA)
• Pat Meehan (R-PA)
• Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)
• Richard Nolan (D-MN)
• Tom MacArthur (R-NJ)
• Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
• Jared Polis (New Dem-CO)
• Ileana Ros-Lehtien (R-FL)

Aside from Gottheimer, that leaves a pack of rabid Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, corporate Dems, financed by Wall Street to do the bidding of Big Business:

• Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Brad Schneider (New Dem-IL)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Darren Soto (New Dem-FL)
• Tom Suozzi (New Dem-NY)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)

Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn and the rest of the Democratic establishment have always coddled this gaggle of corruptionists. And now they're threatening to do the dirty work of the Wall Street banksters by torpedoing Pelosi's bid for the speakership. This morning, Politico ran a piece by Nolan McCaskill on the Problem Solvers' ploy. He wrote that 9 Democrats-- so 4 fewer Dems than I could find on their membership list-- had issued a statement Friday saying that they "will only vote for a speaker candidate who supports 'Break the Gridlock' rules changes," a Republican proposal to weaken Democrats and which was not handed to either Boehner or Ryan when the GOP held the majority. The vote is Wednesday.

Pelosi met with Problem Solvers Democrats last week after they sent her a letter “strongly” encouraging her to embrace their proposals to “Break the Gridlock.” Pelosi described the meeting as “positive and constructive” and credited members for coming forward “with valuable solutions” to restore the House “as the great marketplace of ideas our founders intended.”

She vowed to continue working with those members “to develop changes to the rules that will break the gridlock in Washington and deliver results for hard-working Americans.” But she failed to commit to any proposals.

“While we appreciate Leader Pelosi’s broad commitment to our effort, we have yet to receive specific commitments to our proposed rules changes that would help ‘Break the Gridlock’ and allow for true bipartisan governing in this new era of divided government,” the members said Friday. “Without specific changes, we will face more of the same-- small pockets of extreme ideologues will continue to block the will of the commonsense majority.”

The Problem Solvers Democrats said the midterm elections made clear that Americans want a working, bipartisan government that moves the country forward, not “obstructionism and pure partisanship.”

“Although we are at a stalemate in our discussions, and therefore cannot support Leader Pelosi for speaker at this time, we will keep working with the leader and others in hope of reaching consensus on specific rules changes for more bipartisan, common sense governing,” they said.

Since it is primarily Wall Street and the pharmaceutical companies behind the move to oust or weaken Pelosi, take a look at how much each of these crooks has taken from those two sectors since being elected. Some of these gentlemen are virtual bribe-taking machines:

• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- $2,957,327
• Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX)- $316,498
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- $1,149l,428
• Brad Schneider (New Dem-IL)- $2,440,799
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)- $715,746
• Darren Soto (New Dem-FL)- $336,377
• Tom Suozzi (New Dem-NY)- $1,044,912
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)- $2,026,616
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)- $395,501
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- $2,013,752
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)- $3,244,583
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- $1,422,628
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- $545,115

How Should Progressives See The Speakership Battle?

It's time for Nancy Pelosi to go. We need someone else to lead the Democratic Party in Congress. She's part of a status quo-- like Hillary-- that voters are not happy about. IT IS TIME FOR HER TO MOVE ON and make way for someone who comes from a different, more up-to-date personal and political context. Pelosi's priorities are no longer in synch with the priorities of the Democratic base. But that does not mean throwing her out and replacing her with a cabal of Wall Street and Big PhRMA-backed corporate shills. God forbid! And the Seth Moulton #5WhiteGuys coup is exactly that. The Congressional Progressive Caucus wants nothing to do with it-- nor do the vast majority of House Democrats. Blue Dogs, New Dems and other reactionaries from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party are all that this coup is about.

Alan Grayson left his House seat to run, alas unsuccessfully, for the U.S. Senate. But when he was in the House he was a great admirerer of Pelosi. He still is and when i asked him how he feels about the current leadership battle, he told me that personally, he "found that she was the only leader in the House-- on either side-- committed to the fundamental ethic that our job was to pass good legislation that would make the world a better place, and that electoral success would (and should) follow only from that."

A few days ago Chris Hayes talked about the leadership battle on his MSNBC show with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (above), who has already participated in a Climate Change sit-in in Pelosi's office (None of the #5WhiteGuys showed up.) She said when she read Moulton's letter, her "main concern was that there is no vision, there is no common value, there is no goal that is really articulated in this letter aside from 'we need to change.' I do think that we got sent to Congress on a mandate to change how government works, to change what government even looks like. But if we are not on the same page about changing the system and that values and how we're going to adapt as a party for the future, then what is the point, then what is the point of just changing our party leadership for the sake of it."

Keep in mind that Pelosi strongly backed Ocasio's opponent while the DCCC and her House Majority PAC spent $5 million electing Anthony Brindisi (NY), Ben McAdams (UT), Max Rose (NY) and Jeff Van Drew (NJ), the dishonorable and corrupt Blue Dogs who have foolishly signed on as members of Moulton's disintegrating coup.

Prodded by Hayes to define how she sees the coup, Ocasio aded that "if anything, I think that what it does is create a window where we could potentially get more conservative leadership. When you actually look at the signatories, it is not necessarily reflective of the diversity of the party. We have about 16 signatories. 14 of them are male. There are very few people of color. There's very little ideological diversity; it's not like there are progressives signing on. It's not like you have a broad-based coalition."

Since he's always so sensible, I asked Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who currently has the single best voting record, according to ProgressivePunch, of anyone in Congress. "Practically speaking," he told me yesterday, "the alternative to Pelosi right now is chaos. But chaos is not a progressive value-- it’s the classic opportunity for opportunism and right-wing politics.  Pelosi has been an historic figure who has engineered major legislative advances on everything from Dodd-Frank to the ACA. When it’s time for a change in leadership, progressive forces within Congress and across America will be ready."


UPDATE: One Less Coup Plotter

Brian Higgins is neither a Blue Dog nor a New Dem. He's an ordinary congressional Democrat and never appeared to me to be someone who belonged on Seth Moulton's list of coup plotters. And early yesterday his hometown paper, the Buffalo News, reported that he reversed course and will back Pelosi for speaker. He told the paper that he "decided to support Pelosi after she agreed to rank two of his top priorities among the new Democratic House's priorities. He said Pelosi agreed that Democrats will advance a major infrastructure bill early in the next Congress, and that Higgins will be able to take the lead as House Democrats work to pass his proposal to allow people to buy in to Medicare at the age of 50." The paper suggested that Higgins' withdrawal from Moulton's scheming "could take the steam out of the effort to replace Pelosi."

Pelosi Might Not Be A Great Leader Any Longer But Most Of The Members Who Want Her Position Are FAR Worse

Bernie founded the Congressional Caucus in 1991 and among the first 20 members only 5 are still in the House: Pete DeFazio (D-OR), Maxine Waters (R-CA), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)... yes, Nancy Pelosi. She was a progressive then and back then the "progressive" in the Congressional Progressive Caucus meant a lot more than it does now. She resigned from it in 2001 when she joined the House leadership and was elected party whip. Soon after, she and majority leader, Dick Gephardt, went their own separate ways. Gephardt helped Bush write the Iraq War resolution and crossed the aisle with a minority of Democrats to pass it. Pelosi rallied most of the Democrats to oppose it. Although the official story was that Gephardt was leaving the majority leader position to run for president in 2002, the real story that he was that Pelosi killed him over the Iraq War. She became minority leader in 2002 and then speaker in 2006.

She really was a progressive. But once she was party leader, she had to be able to work with them whole party and she toned down and toned down her instinctual ideological bent... until it ceased to exist.

She's about power and party now, dead center, garden variety Democrat. Is she going to be speaker again in 2019? The Beltway media was all over that yesterday. Mike DeBonis kicked off with a Washington Post story, Pelosi is the star of GOP attack ads, worrying Democrats upbeat about midterms. The Republican attacks have transformed her into a polarizing figure-- though not as polarizing as Mitch McConnell, who isn't being asked to step down (based on how the Democrats have defined him).

I'm not a big fan of Pelosi's-- especially when it comes to how she has ruined the DCCC with a series of incompetent conservative chairs from Rahm to Israel (and the current staff-operated nonentity). But... there are 2 questions to pay attention to:

1- are Democrats going to allow the GOP to define their own leader?

2- if they replace her is it because they have someone better to put in?

There are plenty of ambitious, far less talented, far more conservative Democrats who see themselves as speaker. On Thursday, when ultra-progressive, Rashida Tlaib, told CNN's John Berman on New Day that she "probably" wouldn't vote for Pelosi, the word "probably," was important. I don't expect Rashida to back some ambitious, corrupt, right-of-center New Dem like Kathleen Rice (NY) or some stinking Blue Dog like Cheri Bustos (IL). She not into Pelosi because Pelosi, she said "[is] supporting big banks and supporting efforts that I don’t think put the people first is troubling… She doesn't speak about the issues that are important to the families of the 13th Congressional District, and they are a priority for me." OK, fair enough but who's running who would be better? That's the key. Rice or Bustos would be much worse, much, much worse. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) handled the question the way all progressives candidates should: "Let me win the election first in November before I make commitments… I think that she’s a candidate to consider." Susan Wild (PA), who wouldn't commit to voting for her-- or against her-- came right to the point: "If any other political official had done what she has done, but had been male, that question would not constantly be coming up."

Randy Bryce (WI) is savvy enough to say he wants to look at the options first. I suspect if Ted Lieu or Barbara Lee, Jamie Raskin or Pramila Jayapal were candidates it would be easy for progressives like Bryce to make a quick decision. But neither they nor any other progressive is likely to run against Pelosi. Bryce: "It’s not something that I spend a lot of time thinking about. I’m extremely concerned about making sure we get another working person in Congress, and once I get there, I definitely would be anxious to see who wants to take the reins of the leadership position."

Lisa Brown (WA) just won her primary Tuesday. She was the majority leader of the Washington state House and her answer reflected the realities of party leadership: "I have already stated that I’d like to see new people included in the Democrats' leadership team. That being said, this decision is too important to make in advance without knowing who the candidates will be, discussing their performance with other members, especially those from the Northwest, and having a chance to interview them personally."

Dana Balter (NY), the progressive candidate from Syracuse who was bitterly opposed by the DCCC but kicked their asses (and has every reason to oppose Pelosi), had a perfect response to the question: "I don't really know an answer to this question because when I choose a candidate for any election I look at the candidates and I don't know who's running… I think we are stuck in the old way of doing things, and we need not only new energy but a new approach." But it's got to be a better approach, not just a different approach.

Then look at some of the real dummies, generally right-of-center, like Dan Kohl (WI): "If I'm elected to Congress, I would not vote for Nancy Pelosi as leader of the Democrats." Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY) is the same kind of idiot: "I believe it's time for new leadership on both sides of the aisle." He doesn't get to pick who the GOP nominates to replace Ryan. And, clearly, he wants someone as far to the right as the Democratic leader as he is himself. That's what Pelosi gets for having the DCCC recruit garbage Republican-lite candidates like Brindisi. Probably even further right than Brindisi is Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ), the worst of the DCCC recruits: "We need to change the leadership in Washington. After more than a decade of leading House Democrats as Speaker and Minority Leader, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi will not have my support as leader in the next session." Opposition from right-wing Democrats like Van Drew and Brindisi, with their purely Republican records in their state legislatures, should give pause to normal Democrats. Here's the list of people already on the record for and against Pelosi.

Back to DeBonis who makes the point that the "polarizing figure" (not by anything she's done, but 100% because of constant, vicious and deranged GOP attacks) "is making it harder for many of their candidates to compete in crucial swing districts." That alone might make it incumbent upon Democrats to elect her as leader again. "Republicans... have made the House minority leader a central element of their attack ads and are portraying many of their opponents as inextricably tied to the liberal from San Francisco." OK, fuck them and the elephant they rode in on.

"At the same time," DeBonis continued, "some Democrats are expressing alarm that she is standing in the way of the next generation of leaders." OK, true enough... and who exactly is saying that? Mostly conservative Democrats who imagine themselves in that spot-- Rice, Cooper, Moulton, Bustos, all terrible choices. DeBonis wrote that some "are beginning to speak out about how allowing Pelosi to remain in charge of the caucus could reduce the size of a Democratic wave in November or worse, imperil their ability to win the majority." A little late for that argument. That boat has sailed.

"People pretend that it isn’t a problem, but it’s a problem that exists," said Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY), who said he heard from frustrated colleagues this week concerned that the anti-Pelosi messaging cost Democrats in Ohio." But not the much redder Conor Lamb district in Pennsylvania? Grow up, asshole!

The tension is exacerbated by a growing generational rift in the Democratic caucus, with younger candidates and members looking to assert themselves against a leadership team that includes Pelosi, 78, and her top lieutenant, 79-year-old Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) Among the Democratic candidates who have declined to endorse Pelosi is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old Democratic Socialist from Queens [she's from the Bronx, professor] who has become a national star of the party’s left wing.

Tlaib, of Michigan, said it was time for a generational change, telling CNN Thursday that her constituents “don’t feel like they’re being heard, and I think that starts at the top with leadership.”

Republicans say Pelosi, who is well-known among voters from her four years as House speaker starting in 2007 and who wants to reclaim the job, continues to be a reliable shorthand for a liberal Democratic agenda.

About a third of Republican ads in the Ohio race mentioned or depicted Pelosi, and GOP strategists argued that Democratic candidate Danny O’Connor’s last-minute equivocating on the Pelosi question was a deciding factor.

Pelosi and her allies pointed to the top-line reality of Ohio: A district that voted for Trump in 2016 by 11 points and for Republican congressional candidates by much bigger margins swung decisively to Democrats. The GOP’s reliance on anti-Pelosi messages, they say, reflects an inability to find any other effective issue-- and to the extent she is a factor at all, her role is dwarfed by that of the president.

“Trump is the only figure who looms large over the midterms,” said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill. “At the end of the day the midterms are about the president and his party, especially when they’re in control of every branch of government.”

Pelosi has long touted her ability to navigate the complex internal politics of her caucus. “I think I’m worth the trouble, quite frankly,” she said last year after Democrats narrowly lost a Georgia special election where she was a centerpiece of GOP attacks.

Still, Democratic candidates across the country are being pressed about whether they support Pelosi, and regardless of how they answer, they are being subjected to GOP attacks tying them to her.



On Wednesday, the biggest Republican super PAC focusing on House races debuted an ad against Kansas candidate Paul Davis-- one of more than two dozen House Democratic candidates who have openly spurned Pelosi-- declaring that “a vote for Paul Davis is a vote for Nancy Pelosi.” [Davis is a right-of-center Blue Dog with more in common with Republicans than with Pelosi. If he can't defend himself from the deceitful ad, he should find another line of work.]

Ken Spain, a Republican political consultant, said Democrats are “going to leave seats on the table” as long as Pelosi remains a viable face of their party.

“In a race that was decided by 1,000 or 1,500 votes, that was probably a difference- maker,” he said. Even if Democrats win the House in November, he added, “it could be the difference between having a razor-thin majority and a governing majority. It’s a lot easier to move legislation when you have a cushion of votes to work with.”

In the Ohio race, outside Republican groups aired ads on a variety of themes-- taxes, opioids, education, health care and seniors. But Pelosi ads dominated, especially in the final week. [The GOP has nothing positive to say about their pathetic agenda and record, so they attack Pelosi. It rarely works.]

O’Connor said early on that he did not support Pelosi remaining as the top Democrat in the House-- echoing the stance of Conor Lamb, the Pennsylvania Democrat who won a March special election in a GOP-leaning district.

But GOP attack ads targeting O’Connor still highlighted Pelosi, and he gave those attacks fresh oxygen a week before Election Day when, under persistent questioning during an MSNBC interview, he conceded he would vote for Pelosi as speaker if the choice were between her and a Republican.

Higgins said Democratic candidates, especially in Republican-leaning districts, are trying to “customize their appeal” to their particular races, and the Pelosi questions complicate that task: “They are stuck with that question, and they do not deal with it well. You equivocate, and it jams you up, and it costs you votes,” he said.

A GOP operative familiar with private Republican polling said the numbers turned toward Republican candidate Troy Balderson after O’Connor’s MSNBC remarks-- during a period that also included Trump’s rally in the district and an ad from Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R). A Democratic campaign official said that they did not see any movement in their polling in that time frame.

Jesse Hunt, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said GOP officials saw no evidence in Ohio that Pelosi attacks have lost their potency.

“When Nancy Pelosi becomes a central part of the discussion in any race, that is something we’re winning on because we’re not just talking about her, we’re talking about her policies,” Hunt said.

Asked by CNN Wednesday if Pelosi had hurt his campaign, O’Connor returned to his preferred way of discussing the Democratic leader: As a figure from the past who needed to move aside.

“It tells me that folks are ready for a new generation of leadership,” O’Connor said.

Tlaib, who also is looking for a change, previously expressed reservations about Pelosi in an April interview with the Hill, citing her role in pushing former congressman John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) out of Congress over sexual harassment allegations.

[Worthless moron] Abigail Spanberger, running against GOP incumbent Dave Brat in the suburbs of Richmond, told the New York Times in an article published Thursday that “under no circumstances” would she support Pelosi for speaker.

Republicans have gotten little political traction from their tax cuts, as other economic changes-- rising gas prices and blowback from Trump’s tariffs-- have offset any financial lift. Instead, as a three-month sprint to November begins, Republicans are focusing on the fear of “open borders,” tax increases, the MS-13 gang, and Pelosi back in charge, overseeing a liberal caucus.

Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said that whether trained on Pelosi or any other issue, the Republican message has failed to resonate with voters.

“Week after week, Republicans claimed to have a new silver bullet or line of attack against Danny O’Connor, yet his positive image only strengthened over the course of the election,” he said. “Republicans are on the brink of losing the House, and they are flailing.”

Pelosi has been careful recently to keep her party’s message focused. She has not embraced calls for Trump’s impeachment; nor has she offered any actual support for a growing campaign on the left to eliminate the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. But Republicans say that, in the eyes of voters, Pelosi’s name is shorthand for extreme liberal policies-- even those she does not personally support.

“To the average American-- not the average Republican, the average American-- Nancy Pelosi and her San Francisco liberal values are completely removed from reality,” said Corry Bliss, executive director of the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC, citing focus-group research. “That means the resistance movement and everything that comes along with it-- raising taxes, getting rid of ICE, trying to impeach Trump.”

Other than being a Democrat, there is nothing intrinsic about Nancy Pelosi that the Republicans have targeted with their ugly hatred (unless it is also being a woman). The same kind of attacks could easily be launched against any Democrat. These Republican attacks should not be the reason House Democrats vote her out of leadership. Let's see if they come up with a better candidate. I hope they do. But scuttlebutt among Democrats is that Pelosi just wants 100 days as Speaker and that she'll retire after that. She has told other House Democrats that that rumor is false. Whatever, Democrats should not allow Republicans to pick Democratic leaders-- or candidates. Right now the GOP-funded (include the Murdochs) No Labels is working to chose conservative candidates over progressives. Democrats have to avoid this. We have a Republican Party controlled by conservative billionaires; we don't need a Republican-lite party controlled by conservative billionaires on top of it.

What Happens If Alexandria Ocasio Doesn't Replace Crowley In November

I often write that Joe Crowley-- handpicked by Pelosi and Hoyer to take over the House Democrats after they leave-- is the single most corrupt Democrat in Congress. Over the weekend I got a call from a friendly Democrat in Congress who asked me on what basis I keep making that claim. She told me she intends to vote for Crowley to lead the Democrats but was disturbed by the persistence of my assertions about him. I sent her the link above. She called back this morning and said my assertions in those posts were disturbing but they weren't enough for her to change her intentions.

Neither did a discussion we had about how Wall Street and the whole financial sector had given Crowley more money-- bribes-- than any other Democrat in the House, $7,148,700 at this point, even more than Hoyer ($6,432,164) and Himes ($6,115,602), both notorious Wall Street whores.

But what did seem to stop her in her tracks was an old story-- from before she was elected to Congress-- I found from the New York Daily News. I have a feeling very few of the freshmen and sophomores in Congress know anything about this-- nor about how Pelosi had to make a deal with the Republicans getting Crowley off the hook... by agreeing to let FOUR Republicans off the hook with the House Ethics Committee! Benjamin Lesser's 8 year old article, Queens Congressman Joe Crowley's campaign funds under investigation in ethics probe should be required reading for every Democrat before voting for their next congressional leader. It isn't a chapter Crowley is comfortable discussing.

Queens Congressman Joe Crowley is one of the most prolific campaign fund-raisers on Capitol Hill-- a trait that now has him in the middle of an ongoing ethics investigation.

Last month, the House Office of Congressional Ethics sent letters to a number of Washington lobbyists asking for documents related to fund-raising just before the Dec. 11 House vote on financial regulatory reform.

The preliminary investigation centers on a bipartisan group by eight members, including Crowley.

One of those who got a letter was Julie Domenick, a lobbyist who hosted a fund-raiser for Crowley Dec. 10 in her D.C. home. She confirmed the letter requested records related to her fund-raising.

Domenick said that the Crowley event had been scheduled on Nov. 4, weeks before the final votes of regulatory reform.

Crowley declined to discuss the Domenick event except to say through a spokesperson he "has always complied with the letter and spirit of all rules regarding fund-raising and standards of conduct."

Crowley, who represents parts of Queens and the Bronx, is the top-ranking member of New York's House delegation and vice chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's money machine.

When he was first elected to Congress, labor unions were his biggest financial backers. They've been eclipsed by financial, insurance and real estate interests, records compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics show.

By the 2008 election, half of Crowley's contributions came from those three industries.

"I think I've matured here both personally and in terms of my assignments," Crowley said. "Many people here in Washington view me as an important figure."

In October, as the House wrestled with financial regulatory reform, Crowley and several other members of the New Democrat Coalition traveled to Wall Street to meet with JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs executives.

Crowley said the financial powerhouses are "important to New York."

"I don't think there's anything wrong with listening to people who will be affected by the legislation you're going to pass," he said.

Crowley also has received tens of thousands of campaign dollars from real estate investment trusts-- companies that use investors' money to purchase and manage commercial real estate.

Since 2008, a political action committee of the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts has donated $33,500 for Crowley's campaign and leadership PAC.

His donors had reason to be pleased with him. In 2008, Crowley pushed legislation that let the trusts resell properties faster without tax penalties.

"Mr. Crowley was very much central to the cause on the House side," one industry observer said.

Then on Jan. 27, Crowley sponsored the Real Estate Revitalization Act of 2010-- a bill that would lower taxes on foreigners investing in real estate trusts.

Four days later, Crowley flew to L.A. to attend the Grammy awards, at one point posing with pop star Katy Perry.

While he was there, Peter Lowy, a top executive of the Westfield Group, an Australian-based developer whose lobbyists have pushed Crowley's bill, organized a Crowley fund-raiser at a restaurant called Toscanova.

Lowy and his wife also have contributed $18,800 to Crowley since February 2008.

A spokesman for Westfield said Lowy hosted the L.A. event as an individual. Crowley insisted it was "crazy" to think campaign money had any impact on his decision to sponsor the legislation.

He said he's gone against the real estate trusts, including raising taxes on profits for investment managers. "I have never, ever, ever sold my vote," he said.

Is there an alternative to Crowley? There is, although House Democrats would have to change precedent (Democrats have always elevated their minority leader to the speakership upon reclaiming majority control of the House) and would have to re-imagine the job of Speaker. Ted Lieu isn't a senior Democrat and his career hasn't been all about raising immense amounts of money from special interests-- which seems to have become, in recent years, the primary job of speakers, a relatively recent phenomenon-- but he would make an excellent Speaker. I know Ted and I see him as a modern day Sam Rayburn, someone who has the ability to help shape bills by working across the aisle the way he did when he was a California state senator. Ted has no intention of running against Pelosi, of that I am certain. He might, however, be amenable to serving if she leaves the position. Blue America has opened an ActBlue page just for that. That's what the thermometer on the right is for.