Trump, Hoping To Get People's Mind Off His Economic Disaster, Floated The Idea Of Postponing The Elections

Maybe he just wanted to get peoples' minds off the worst economic report in American history, but Trump's tweet (above) about postponing the election didn't go over well. Now every Republican running in November is being asked if they support Trump's call for postponing the election.

Meanwhile, back in the Senate, the Trumpist dysfunction has caused a breakdown in government's ability to meet the most basic needs of the American people. Late Wednesday evening, before the dire economic news broke, Washington Post reporters Erica Werner, Jeff Stein, Seung Min Kim and Rachel Bade wrote that "Negotiations on a new coronavirus relief bill hit an impasse on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, leaving no clear path forward even as millions of Americans face a sudden drop in unemployment benefits, and the economy teeters on the brink. A meeting between top White House officials and Democratic leaders ended with no agreement on extending emergency unemployment benefits that expire Friday or on reviving a moratorium on evictions that lapsed last week. That means some 20 million jobless Americans will lose $600 weekly enhanced unemployment benefits that Congress approved in March, which could send the economy reeling."

That, as much as anything, defines Trumpism for us... or against us. Though the House Democrats passed a $3 trillion package that would avert the coming catastrophe Trump and McConnell are leading the country into, "Each side," wrote The Post team, "said the other was to blame for the failure. Paying the price will be the unemployed at a moment of deep uncertainty and fear, with coronavirus cases spiking and states pulling back on reopening as deaths near 150,000 in the United States. The talks could get back on track in coming days, but the signs Wednesday were not promising. 'I don’t know that there is another plan, other than no deal,' said White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. 'Which will allow unemployment, enhanced unemployment, I might add, to expire... No deal certainly becomes a greater possibility the longer these negotiations go... We are nowhere close to a deal.'"

“Our Republican friends don’t seem to come close to meeting the moment. … They’ve put us up against the wall. We have two cliffs because they wouldn’t negotiate for months,” Schumer said.

“They’re tied in a total knot because of the disunity in their caucus, because of their inability to gather votes, because the president says one thing one day, he says another thing the other day,” Schumer added. "We want to come back and keep talking to them. But they don’t have anything to say.”

...Earlier Wednesday Trump had called for a quick fix to address the unemployment benefits and eviction moratorium, saying other issues could wait.

“The rest of it, we’re so far apart, we don’t care, we really don’t care,” Trump told reporters outside the White House, referring to divisions between the two parties.

But Democrats called that approach wholly inadequate.

“We don’t know why the Republicans come around here with a skinny bill that does nothing to address really what’s happening with the virus, and has a little of this and a little of that. We’re not accepting that," Pelosi said. "We have to have the comprehensive full bill.”

McConnell has not embraced the piecemeal approach either, insisting any bill must include a five-year liability shield for businesses, healthcare providers and others-- a non-starter for Democrats.

More than 20 million Americans remain unemployed and have been receiving a $600 weekly emergency unemployment payment that Congress approved in March, on top of whatever benefit their state offers. That extra federal benefit runs out Friday.

Democrats want to extend the extra jobless payment at its current level. The Senate GOP bill released Monday proposes cutting it to $200 weekly until states can phase in a new system that would aim to replace 70 percent of a worker’s wages before unemployment.

Underscoring the continued need, the head of the Federal Reserve said Wednesday that rising coronavirus cases since mid-June are beginning to weigh on the economy, based on consumer credit card spending and hotel occupancy data as well as some labor market indicators.

“On balance, it looks like the data are pointing to a slowing in the pace of the recovery," Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell said during a news conference Wednesday. "I want to stress it’s too early to say both how large that is and how sustained it will be.”

Powell said funding from the $2 trillion Cares Act passed in March was key to keeping people in their homes and jobs. He pointed to the success of the small-business Paycheck Protection Program for getting money directly to businesses that couldn’t necessarily have been saved through a Fed lending program.

“Lending is a particular tool, and we’re using it very aggressively, but fiscal policy is essential here," Powell said. “As I’ve said, more will be needed from all of us, and I see Congress is negotiating now over a new package, and I think that’s a good thing."

...Some Republicans don’t want to spend any more money at all, and there are deep divisions over the $1 trillion bill McConnell released Monday, which proposes to send a new round of $1,200 stimulus checks to individual Americans and inject more money into the Paycheck Protection Program, among other provisions. McConnell said in his PBS interview that there are about 20 GOP senators who would prefer to take no additional action because of deficit concerns.

Trump's only concerns seem to be personal-- legislating a 100% deduction for fat cat restaurant meals, which would result in millions of dollars added to his hotels' and restaurants' bottom lines, and a $1.8 billion fund that would keep the FBI in a building Trump fears would otherwise become a hotel that competes with his own. This guy should be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail-- and then brought back for a trial. And the pandemic that most of the world has gotten a handle on and that Trump has made into one of the worst catastrophe's to ever hit America... just keeps rolling on. Yesterday there were 68,569 more confirmed cases reported nationwide, bringing the U.S. total cases to 4,634,985. Most of the states with the worst daily reports, once again, are state with Trumpist governors who have followed his insane denialism and who seem to have embraced his tragic incompetence as though it was a policy-- while their constituents continue contracting the disease more rapidly than anyplace else on earth. These were the dozen governors-- actually 10 governors and 2 state legislatures-- who gave their states the worst one day new cases yesterday:

• Ron DeSantis (R-FL) +9,956 (21,482 cases per million Floridians)
• Greg Abbott (R-TX) +8,843 (14,943 cases per million Texans)
• Gavin Newsom (D-CA) +8,174 (12,503 cases per million Californians)
• Brian Kemp (R-GA) +3,963 (17,169 cases per million Georgians)
• Doug Ducey (R-AZ) +2,525 (23,465 cases per million Arizonans)
• The North Carolina Republican legislature +2,588 (11,499 cases per million North Carolinians)
• Bill Lee (R-TN) +2,049 (15,063 cases per million Tennesseans)
• Kay Ivey (R-AL) +1,980 (17,491 cases per million Alabamans)
• Tate Reeves (R-MS) +1,775 (19,347 cases per million Mississippians)
• Henry McMaster (R-SC) +1,726 (17,009 cases per million South Carolinians)
• The Louisiana Republican legislature +1,708 (24,626 cases per million Louisianans)
• Mike Parson (R-MO) +1,712 (8,043 cases per million Missourans)

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Ah! Fell for that Trickle Down thing did ya? Again? You know what they say: Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you! Fool me one hundred and three times, and I just shrug, when in fact, I should be marching down to the White House and the Capitol Building and dragging your filthy smug, fat asses out for a nifty Today's Special Beatin'-Hangin' combo and then on to the nearest lamp post with ya or pushing you into my patented Walk-in Cuisinart.

But, instead, America sleeps while its biggest enemy, the one in Washington, robs it blind. This is a story of disrespect for self. At least a whore can get $130,000 out of those in Washington! The average Joe The Sucker settles for $1200 and the advice to drink Lysol.

Yeah, I know. I heard the story that Pelosi, Schumer, and McConnell went along with/conspired with the evil Treasury Secretary Munchkin and said the "oversight" in the matter of the new Multi-Trillion handout to the poor, starving Jamie Dimon's of the country was in his hands. In fact, it never even got to that because, as soon as President Al Capone signed off on the welfare for the donors bill, he said he would ignore the idea of congressional oversight. "Oversight? I don't need no stinkin' oversight! Cue the shock and surprise act as Pelosi says "Who knew?" Or words, the best words, to that effect.

Dear Congress: Go fuck yourselves, every last one of you! You are the worst deplorables of all. A basket for each of your heads!

OK. I'll be fair. I'm always fair. I'll calm down. I'll tone it down. I'll admit that, maybe, there's 5 of you in Congress (Zero in the W.H.) who don't deserve the blade by nightfall. 10, you say? No. I just don't feel comfortable with that generous of a number. Besides, if I say 10, then you'll say 15. So, hey, if I'm wrong... well, a great man or somebody once said, "Let God sort them out."

Geriatric American Leadership Doesn't Seem Capable Of Keeping Up With A Rapidly Changing Environment-- Take McConnell And Pelosi

A few weeks ago I mentioned that Democrats were telling me that Pelosi wanted to adjourn Congress until after the worst of the pandemic but wouldn't act alone, afraid that Trump, McConnell and the Republicans could called her a wimp. She told intimates that she wouldn't act unless McConnell did as well. Since then more than a few House members-- and some senators-- are quarantined and at least two-- Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)-- have tested positive. Staffers on both sides of the Capitol have tested positive and it's likely that many more members would test positive as well. There is also some fear that without Congress is session, Trump could go wild. Meanwhile, they're spreading it among themselves and them among their constituents in every part of the country. As far as we know, members currently quarantined include Mark Meadows (R-NC), Ann Wagner (R-MO), Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL), Julia Brownley (New Dem-CA), Doug Collins (R-GA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Drew Ferguson (R-GA), Jason Crow (New Dem-CO), Kathleen Rice (New Dem-NY), Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK), Steve Scalise (R-LA), David Price (D-NC), Don Beyer (New Dem-VA), Tom Cole (R-OK), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), David Schweikert (R-AZ), Matt Cartwright (D-PA) and Sharice Davids (Blue Dog-KS).

Members are now pushing Pelosi and McConnell to act. CNN reported that Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Rob Portman (R-OH) "introduced a bipartisan resolution on Thursday to amend the rules to allow senators to vote remotely during a national crisis, giving the Senate's Republican and Democratic leaders the joint authority to allow it for up to 30 days. The Senate would then vote to renew remote voting every 30 days." McConnell wants to see at least a few dead senators before he does anything like that. Most people in America hope he's the first to go.

"We live in an age where national emergencies, public health crises and terrorism can threaten the ordinary course of Senate business," said Durbin. "We need to bring voting in the Senate into the 21st century so that our important work can continue even under extraordinary circumstances. Bob Dylan was right: 'the times they are a-changin.'"





But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, has made clear both publicly and privately that he's against any such proposal, even though the Trump administration has advised limiting gatherings to 10 people. On Tuesday, McConnell said the chamber would "deal with the social distancing issue without fundamentally changing the Senate rules." He said the Senate could lengthen the time for a roll call vote to limit the number of people on the Senate floor at any one time.

McConnell has also pledged that the Senate will not leave town until it considers a trillion-dollar proposal from the administration to counter the coronavirus outbreak, larger than the federal government's stimulus package passed in response to the Great Recession. Some lawmakers forced to still come to work say they are getting nervous about the growing threat. One senator asked simply, "Why are we still here?"

The House plans to return when a deal is reached between the administration and congressional leaders. But a bipartisan group of House lawmakers have also requested a rule change that would allow for remote voting.

Like McConnell, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pushed back on the idea. In a caucus meeting last week, the California Democrat rejected calls to leave town and vote remotely, according to a source familiar.

"We are the captains of the ship," she said. "We are the last to leave."

Rep. Dan Kildee, a Democrat from Michigan, told CNN that the House leadership is having ongoing conversations about how to limit interactions on the floor, including extending the voting period.

"We have had some discussions about how we will manage the floor if we need to come back," said Kildee. "It is not just about the risk for ourselves, it is about setting an example for our staffs too."

Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican member on the House Rules Committee, said he's skeptical of changing the rules. He argued that if negotiators achieve their goal of drafting a new coronavirus response package that can win a large consensus, remote voting won't be necessary, even with a number of members not voting because they are in quarantine.

"If some people can't come because they either have been exposed or in self quarantine, we still will have overwhelming numbers," Cole told CNN. "Nobody's going to throw rocks at you because you had coronavirus and couldn't come or you've been exposed to somebody and couldn't come. People will understand that, your constituents will."

Proponents of remote voting believe that their leaders will ultimately relent. A rules change would require the approval of two-thirds of senators but only a majority of House members.

Senators are bracing for one of their own to test positive for the novel coronavirus-- and if they do, that will almost certainly lead to the rule change, the proponents say.

"Once someone gets it, we're out of here," said a second senator granted anonymity.

Trump Promised Lower Drug Prices... But He Has Moscow Mitch Blocking Both Democratic And Republican Bills That Would Do That. Why Is He Such A Dick?

I was on the phone a few minutes ago, talking with a super-progressive running for a congressional seat in central Texas and she brought up Lloyd Doggett, chair of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, and more progressive than anyone else in the Texas congressional delegation. Some people consider his bill, the Medicare Negotiation and Competitive Licensing Act of 2019 (H.R.1046) too radical; it would help too many working families and infuriate too many Big PhRMA executives, lobbyists and donors. Doggett's bill "requires the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies regarding prices for drugs covered under the Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Current law prohibits the CMS from doing so.) The CMS must take certain factors into account during negotiations, including the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the drug, the financial burden on patients, and unmet patient needs. If the CMS is unable to negotiate the price of a drug, such drug is subject to competitive licensing in order to further its sale under Medicare, notwithstanding existing government-granted exclusivities. Additionally, for one year after a drug is provided under a competitive license, such drug is also subject to specified price limitations; if the drug is not offered at such prices, the drug is subject to additional licensing that furthers its sale under any federal program (e.g., Medicaid)." Doggett has 127 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

The bill was too much for Pelosi and Hoyer and it remains bottled up in Frank Pallone's Energy and Commerce Committee, where Pallone will make sure it never sees the light of day. Instead, Pelosi passed a meh bill-- better than nothing but not nearly as good as Doggett's bill.

But even that bill, that passed the House with bipartisan support-- and a nod from Trump-- is being prevented from getting a debate, let alone a vote, by Moscow Mitch in the most dysfunctional Senate in American history. Marianne Levine and Sarah Karlin-Smith reported on the morass the struggle to lower the cost of drugs is experiencing in the GOP-controlled Senate for Politico over the weekend.

An even less helpful bill was approved by the Senate Finance Committee (19-9) but the Finance Committee chair who's sponsoring it, Chuck Grassley (R-IA), says McConnell won't even let that one come to the floor. He said Trump-- who is probably just pretending to want to lower drug prices-- would have to lean on Moscow Mitch and tell him to put it up for a floor vote. There's no question that it would pass, but Trump doesn't really want it to pass, as long as he doesn't get the blame for it not passing.

The standstill-- even on an issue that has bipartisan backing and the support of a fickle president-- reflects the unceasing gridlock of today’s Senate and how difficult it is to move any major legislation through the upper chamber.

With Democrats in control of the House, the GOP-controlled Senate has shifted virtually its entire focus to confirming Trump’s judicial nominees where bipartisan votes aren’t needed. And heading into an election year, McConnell is loath to bring up issues that divide his caucus or risk alienating powerful industry groups. Legislative activity will only decline further if and when the Senate holds an impeachment trial that will further polarize the Capitol.

“I’ve said to people here, if you’ve been here four years or less you’ve never seen the Senate,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) “And you would have loved it. It was an interesting place. We had bills, and amendments ... we did big things.”

Senate Republicans have unsurprisingly ignored a raft of liberal measures passed by the Democratic House, including bills to curb gun violence or overhaul election laws. But even ostensibly less controversial legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act or strengthen retirement security have also run aground amid partisan bickering.

The only measures regularly moving are must-pass bills to avoid a shutdown, and lawmakers are still struggling to reach a long-term deal to fund the government.

McConnell has made no secret that stacking the judiciary with conservatives is a top priority. But he also argues that the Senate could do more if the House wasn’t stalling on matters like the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement or the annual defense policy bill.

“If [Democrats] are going to keep plowing ahead with their impeachment obsession, they cannot abdicate their basic governing responsibilities at the same time,” McConnell said recently.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing her own legislation to curb the cost of prescription drugs, but McConnell has said it has no chance in the Senate.

Most Republicans have long opposed federal intervention when it comes to the cost of prescription drugs, but public support for action as well as Trump’s embrace of the issue may be shifting the party’s stance.

The GOP leader said in September that the Senate’s next steps on prescription drugs were “under discussion” and that the chamber is “looking at doing something on drug pricing.” Still, McConnell has demonstrated little interest in taking up Grassley’s bill, which would cap seniors’ out of pocket costs on drugs in Medicare and penalize companies that levy large price increases, among dozens of other measures aimed at lowering spending on medication.

That’s despite Trump saying he likes Grassley’s bill “very much” and top White House aides throwing their support behind the legislation.

Health industry sources closely tracking the Senate proposal, say McConnell’s office is not making an effort to help the White House get his members on board.

Asked whether McConnell would bring the bill to the floor, one Republican senator said, “I can’t imagine... It’s like Grassley, and a couple of Republicans and all the Democrats on the committee.”

Grassley has acknowledged that any action on his bill is likely slip into 2020 and that the measure currently doesn’t have enough support to pass in the Senate.

Grassley and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the bill’s coauthor and the Finance Committee’s ranking member, are trying to make changes to the bill to garner more Republican backing.

“This bill may not have 60 votes today, but when Republicans wake up to the fact that 22 of them are up for reelection and in every state it’s an issue ... they are going to soon realize that this is the road to do something responsible,” Grassley said at an event late last month . “But we’re not there yet.”

Since the legislation advanced out of the Senate Finance Committee in July, administration officials including Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Joe Grogan, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, have been on the Hill pushing the bipartisan bill with little to show for it.

The measure was approved by the panel on a 19-9 vote, with six Republicans joining all Democrats and nine Republicans opposed. A chairman advancing a bill through committee over the opposition of most in his party is an unusual event, but the fact underscores Grassley’s commitment to moving ahead.

GOP senators who voted against the bill largely cited a proposed change to Medicare’s prescription drug benefit that they say is akin to implementing government price controls; it would impose financial penalties on companies that raise prices faster than inflation.

Grassley has said provision is necessary to keep Democrats on board with the bill. But even some of the Republicans who voted for it in committee have indicated they might not support final passage on the floor if that language remains.

Another large health policy package with bipartisan support has also faced headwinds.

The Senate HELP Committee approved a bill this summer that would aim to prevent surprise medical bills, raise the legal age to buy tobacco to 21-- a priority of McConnell’s-- and increase competition in the drug industry. While the White House hasn’t backed the package explicitly, Grogan penned an op-ed this past Wednesday calling on lawmakers to “come back to Washington in December ready to vote to protect patients from surprise medical bills.”

Momentum on the legislation stalled after pushback from doctors and dark money groups over how to resolve “surprise” bill disputes between insurance companies and health care providers. Senate GOP leadership hasn’t given any assurances it would bring the measure to the floor, though one Senate Republican aide said it could become part of an end-of-year spending package.

“I hope we can come up with a consensus document the leaders could attach to any piece of legislation they want to attach it to,” HELP Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) told reporters recently. “I think sooner or later people are going to say, ‘We’d like to do more than confirm judges and talk about impeachment.’”

Indeed, the Senate has not been doing much legislating these days. Republicans have instead prioritized the confirmation of judicial and executive branch nominees, even changing Senate rules to speed up the process. So far this Congress, the Senate has held 268 votes on nominations, compared to 98 votes on legislation.

The House has sent more than 300 bills over to the Senate, and Democrats are quick to point out that many of them have Republican support.

I spoke about this drug pricing issue with the two most progressive Senate candidates running for Republican-held seats this cycle, Betsy Sweet in Maine and Andrew Romanoff in Colorado. Andrew, the former speak of the Colorado House, is in a tough election race with two conservatives, John Hickenlooper, the establishment Democrat in the primary, and Trumpist Cory Gardner in the general. Health care-- he's a Medicare-for-All proponent-- is one of the top issues motivating his campaign. He told me that "The high cost of health care is driving more than half a million Americans into bankruptcy each year-- and 35,000 to an early grave. We need senators who will stand up to the drugmakers and the insurance companies, not do their bidding. But that won’t happen until we put an end to the corrupting influence of corporate cash and elect lawmakers who no longer owe their seats to the industries they’re supposed to be regulating."

Betsy Sweet has a similar situation. Chuck Schumer picked an easy to manipulate, middle of the road candidate in Maine, just the way he did in Colorado. "Apparently," Betsy told, "the political money from big PhRMA is more important to Mitch McConnell and his Senators than the bankruptcies  and lack of medical care millions are experiencing from unaffordable prescription drugs. Medicare for All and universal coverage the ultimate answer. The bills being held up are steps in the right direction. Inaction is unacceptable. Senator Susan Collins ought to be demanding publicly that McConnell take action on this."

Washington Politics-- Hopelessly Broken?

In his State of the Union interview Sunday with Jake Tapper, Justin Amash (I-MI), Amash was steadfast in his position that it isn't Trump-- who he obviously detests-- that caused him to leaved the GOP but Congress itself. He told Tapper he had made the decision to leave the party before he called for Congress to begin the impeachment process and before Mueller issued his report. While Tapper kept trying to get him to say something negative about Trump, Amash wanted to make the point that he "had concerns with the Republican Party for several years. I have had concerns with the party system generally. When I first got to Congress, I thought I could change things from the inside. But, as I have spent time there, I have seen that, not only me-- I don't think there's anyone in there who can change the system. It's pretty rigid. It's top-down. It comes down from leadership to the bottom. And, over the years, it's gotten more rigid. So it's more difficult now to actually change the process than it was even a few years ago... I think this term in Congress has really shown how bad it can get. When I started the House Freedom Caucus-- I was one of the founding members-- what we were fighting for was better process. We were fighting for a more open government, a more accountable government. We wanted members to have a voice in the process, so that we'd have a deliberative body and we'd be able to represent people back home, whatever the outcome. Sometimes, the outcomes would be more conservative. Sometimes, the outcomes would be more progressive. But whatever the outcome, we wanted to open it up. But, over the years, I have seen that people are just falling in line behind the leaders, including people in my own caucus, you know, which I left. So it's gotten worse and worse. And I think this was the term that really broke it for me."

AMASH: I have worked within the Republican Party. I have tried to make changes from within. My colleagues have tried to make changes from within. It hasn't worked. It's not working for anyone.

And I'm not the only one trying. I have colleagues who are trying every day, and who are frustrated. But they are not speaking out the same way.

I hope they will speak out.

But it's time to try something different. It's time to be a committed independent representative for my district, so that everyone back home knows where I stand, because, right now, when you go back home, you hear Republicans who don't trust you because you're not aligned with the president. You hear Democrats who don't trust you because you're a Republican.

And most of the people in my district do trust me, they respect me, they support me. And I want those people to know that I'm there for them. I'm there to represent every single person in the community.

TAPPER: But not having any power on a committee, doesn't that hurt your ability to serve your constituents?

AMASH: In today's politics, the committees have almost no power.

And I want people at home to understand that. Everything is really run top-down. When I say that, I mean it very literally. The speaker of the House very much controls the entire process. The speaker decides what comes out of committee.

When Speaker Ryan, our Republican speaker, was there, the-- I was on several committees, and nothing ever came out of the committees that wasn't approved by Speaker Ryan.

TAPPER: So, let me ask you about that, because I talked to Brendan Buck, who was a senior adviser to both Speaker Paul Ryan and to Speaker Boehner.

And he says one of the reasons why Congress isn't functioning as it should is because of the Freedom Caucus. That's the perspective of a lot of people in Republican leadership, as I'm sure you know.

Specifically, Buck said: "You can't have an honest conversation about partisanship and polarization in the last five years without acknowledging the role the Freedom Caucus played. They insisted on loyalty to their own tribe above all else, and drove this toxic notion that compromise is treason."

As you mentioned, you're a founding member of the Freedom Caucus. What's your response to that? Do you-- do you think that the Freedom Caucus deserves any blame for how things are going in Congress right now?

AMASH: So I don't want to speak for the Freedom Caucus today, since I'm no longer a member.

But I will say, when the Freedom Caucus was founded, the purpose was to open up the process. And the speaker of the House and his spokespeople have it totally backward. They were closing down the entire system. And members of the Freedom Caucus said, well, we need to band together to ensure that we open this up. We want to be able to offer amendments on the House floor.

Under Speaker Ryan, for example, for the first time in congressional history, we had a whole Congress where not a single member of Congress was able to go to the House floor and offer an amendment. It was the first time in history. It was the most closed Congress in history.

And now, under Speaker Pelosi, we have the same problem, where we're not allowed to go to the House floor and offer amendments.

So, the thing is closed down. We need to open it up. And, sometimes, you have to form a group like the Freedom Caucus to stand up to the establishment in Washington.

...TAPPER: You have said that people turn to-- into-- quote-- "zombies" when they come to Washington, because they're telling you things privately that are different than what they say publicly.

What are you hearing from fellow Republicans privately-- obviously, you don't have to mention their names-- about your decision and about being a Republican member of Congress in the Trump era?

AMASH: Well, I get people sending me text messages, people calling me, saying, "Thank you for what you're doing, great op-ed."

When I was discussing impeachment, I had fellow colleagues and other Republicans, high-level officials, contacting me, saying, "Thank you for what you're doing."

So there are lots of Republicans out there who are saying these things privately. But they're not saying it publicly. And I think that's a problem for our-- for our country. It's a problem for the Republican Party. It's a problem for the Democratic Party, when people aren't allowed to speak out.

So I-- I think we really need the American people to stand up and say, hey, enough is enough. We have had it with these two parties trying to ram their partisan nonsense down our throats week after week. We want a person to go represent us and be open and represent the entire community.

TAPPER: Are you running for reelection as an independent to Congress?

AMASH: Yes, I am.

TAPPER: You are? And you think you can win as an independent?

AMASH: Yes. I'm very confident about that... I feel confident about running in my district. I feel a close tie to my community. I feel-- I care a lot about my community. I want to represent them in Congress.

...TAPPER: So you have come out in support of impeaching or at least beginning the proceedings of impeaching President Trump.

You said there's no point in formally bringing articles of impeachment right now because Speaker Pelosi doesn't support it. Is she making a mistake? Do you think that the Democrats should be starting impeachment proceedings, based on the Mueller report, what's in there about potential obstruction of justice, which is the case you laid out?

AMASH: Yes, from a principled, moral position, she's making a mistake.

From a strategic position, she's making a mistake. If she believes, as I do, that there's impeachable conduct in there, then she should say so. She should tell the American people, we're going to move forward with impeachment hearings and potentially articles of impeachment.

When she says things like, "Oh, I think that we need to have the strongest case before we go forward," what she's telling the American people is, she doesn't think there's a strong case. If she doesn't think that, then she shouldn't open her mouth in the first place and say she thinks there's impeachable conduct. I do believe there's a strong case. I believe she believes there's a strong case. And, if so, she should move forward and make sure that the American people understand what's going on, because people at home aren't reading the Mueller report. Most people don't have time to read a 448-page report.

They expect their members of Congress to do the work for them. They want Speaker Pelosi to do the work. They want other members to do the work. And if she doesn't want to go forward, then we're going to have a big problem.

TAPPER: Last question.

How many of your Republican colleagues do you think have actually read the Mueller report?

AMASH: I think it's probably less than 15 percent.

And I would say that's probably the case on both sides of the aisle.

TAPPER: Do you think it's -- that, once anyone reads it, they would reach the same conclusion as you?

AMASH: I think a large number of them would reach the same conclusion.

There are some who would reach different conclusions. But when you look at the conduct in there, when you look at the evidence that's presented, I think basically anyone would be indicted for that conduct, anyone who is not the president of the United States.

I want to make a very sharp left turn now-- so hold onto your hat. While Amash was on the air with Tapper, Politico published a piece by Laura Barrón-López and Sally Goldenberg about anomie inside the House Democratic caucus over this cycle's primaries. Marie Newman, the progressive Democrat running against lousy Blue Dog incumbent Dan Lipinski in Chicagoland, read it as well and I got the feeling from something she said that she and Amash might see their respective parties similarly. It's not about careerism; it's about service. "For me," she said, "alignment with your district is everything. If current incumbents are not in alignment, yes they should be primaried for sure. However, if an incumbent is still in strong alignment and producing proactive ideas, we should not be primarying just to do it. As a party, we need to work with focus and clarity."

Newman has been a particular target of another venal Blue Dog working to turn the Democratic Party sharply to the right-- vicious careerist and Rahm Emanuel protégée, Cheri Bustos, now chair of the DCCC and the person who started the current anti-democracy movement inside the Democratic Party by decreeing a ban on primaries against incumbents, in effect, against Blue Dog and New Dem incumbents from her own Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Somehow, Barrón-López and Goldenberg managed to write this without once mentioning Bustos' name. Politico is so incredibly in the bag for the establishment it's barely worth repeating-- or always worth repeating.

Shahid Buttar is the progressive Democrat, an attorney and activist, taking on Pelosi in San Francisco this cycle. If he wins in 2020, it will be the second most important news after Trump losing. "The grassroots base of the Democratic Party," he told me yesterday, "has been misrepresented by career politicians for entirely too long. It was one thing to subject the country to a supposed bipartisan consensus on corporate rule that helped facilitate climate change, mass incarceration, and continuing human rights abuses. But the complicity of Democratic leaders with our criminal president is too much to bear. They've had their time, and either failed to stop Trump, or succeeded in creating him. Either way, We the People have had enough. I'm looking forward to replacing Nancy Pelosi in November 2020 and to pursuing our country's visionary future, starting with the progressive interests that Pelosi has impeded: universal healthcare, a robust response to the mounting global climate crisis, executive accountability, and human rights."

Barrón-López and Goldenberg seem to want to help create a narrative that blames the primaries-- all of which have been in the planning stages for many months at the least-- on the backlash against Pelosi's decision to help Trump fund his concentration camps. "Tensions inside the House Democratic Caucus," they wrote dramatically, "are running high after an ugly debate last month over legislation to provide emergency aid for the humanitarian crisis at the border. Progressives lambasted leadership and some centrists who backed the measure as 'child abusers' because it lacked money to improve hygiene and nutrition standards for detained children migrants. That Democratic firefight and others have inflamed liberals looking ahead to 2020, including the group that was behind now-Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset win last year. The raw emotions have many in the party wary of an all-out battle for the party’s soul in primaries from the presidential race all the way down to the congressional level." Isn't that what primaries are all about? And isn't in healthy? Go back to what Newman said: "alignment with your district is everything. If current incumbents are not in alignment, yes they should be primaried for sure. However, if an incumbent is still in strong alignment and producing proactive ideas, we should not be primarying just to do it. As a party, we need to work with focus and clarity." No one could expect Politico to explain what's wrong with that. But I would love to hear Bustos, Pelosi and Hoyer try.

Barrón-López and Goldenberg seem unaware that candidates around the country are mounting primaries against incumbents gone bad-- from Mark Gamba's fight to replace Kurt Schrader in Oregon and over a dozen looming in California to challenges to Pelosi East Coast allies like Steny Hoyer (MD), Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), Nita Lowey (NY), Carolyn Maloney (NY), Richard Neal (MA)... In fact, there are 88 incumbents facing primaries-- so far. Barrón-López and Goldenberg mentioned that super-corrupt Queens County machine boss, New Dem Gregory Meeks told them that he's preparing "and if somebody decides to run, we're ready. But you're not going to catch us by surprise." The reporters should have been prepared to ask them about former legislative aide and international rugby star, Shaniyat Chowdhury, who already is running a strong grassroots campaign against Meeks. He reminded us that in 2016 and 2018 just 10% of eligible voters even bothered to come out and vote, disdain for Meeks running so high. "He’s so corrupt that when he’s driving down the streets, he thinks home foreclosures are promotional ads for his real estate friends. He’s so out of touch, most people say 'who?' when asked who their representative is. If who was a person, they’d get more votes than my opponent and win." 

“Members are looking over their shoulders,” said Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the chairman of the House budget committee. [Barrón-López and Goldenberg didn't bother to mention he's likely to be primaried by progressive state Rep. Attica Scott.]

...There are still questions about how far-reaching and organized the effort to remake the Democratic caucus in the House will be-- and whether it could jeopardize the party’s control of the chamber. But the uptick of actual and threatened primary challenges presents an additional headache for the party as it seeks to hang on to its majority next year. An Associated Press analysis found that 40 percent of currently declared Democratic challengers were in districts with sitting Democrats.

Immediately following the 2018 election, the progressive group Justice Democrats put incumbents on notice, vowing to focus on sitting Democrats. Six months later, they’ve only announced two recruits. The targets: seven-term Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas and 16-term Rep. Eliot Engel of New York.

...In an effort to hamstring primary challengers, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fired a warning shot to the party’s consultants in March, telling them that they risked losing the party committee’s business if they worked for anyone primarying a sitting member of Congress.

“The question that comes up all the time is: Is there anybody internally assisting and abetting, encouraging people to run against incumbents?” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), who has faced Democratic opponents in previous cycles, said of members and their staff. [Barrón-López and Goldenberg didn't bother to mention Pascrell already has 2 primary challengers, progressive activist Zina Spezakis and a guy named Alp Basaran.]

But the DCCC’s so-called blacklist has only inflamed tensions more. The left is trying to build an alternative consulting infrastructure to support these insurgent candidates. Two alums of Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign rolled out plans for a new firm last week, reported the Daily Beast.

...The 2020 election would hardly be the first cycle in which rebels in either party took aim at the establishment. Typically, they have little success: In 2018, just four House incumbents were defeated in primaries, two Democrats and two Republicans.

Justice Democrats hopes to be a galvanizing force to change that. The group plans to back opponents to sitting Democrats who don’t support progressive ideals, or who failed to use their position as lawmakers in more aggressive forms, they say.

Though promising to dedicate more attention to Democrats, the group is also open to getting involved in a small number districts that could be turned from red to blue, according to their executive director Alexandra Rojas.

Justice Democrats is potentially eyeing challenges to Reps. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Don Beyer (D-VA), according to a source close to the group.

Rojas didn’t deny or confirm any of the names, instead saying “anywhere we haven't announced yet means that we may or may not have someone.”

Though members have expressed frustration and concern about primary challenges, there appears to be less fear among members about the power of Justice Democrats, which has struggled to fundraise and provide a clear picture about where they plan to invest their time.

The recent district attorney race in Queens highlighted the growing party divide, as New York lawmakers Gregory Meeks and House Democratic Chairman Hakeem Jeffries threw their weight behind the establishment candidate, Melinda Katz, the borough president. In a statement, days away from the primary, Meeks blasted Sanders and Warren for getting involved in the local race on behalf of the insurgent candidate.

The episode rankled progressive activists like Shaun King, a loyal Sanders supporter, who backed the outsider candidate, Tiffany Cabán.

"Meeks should absolutely be challenged and defeated for his seat in Congress,” said King, co-founder of the Real Justice PAC.

King then directed his ire toward Jeffries, who he said is “out of step” with the progressive base. King took issue with Jeffries’ support of Katz, the establishment-aligned candidate who is currently ahead by only 20 votes, with the count still ongoing.

“Jeffries continues to duck and dodge on impeachment, continues to fail to support Medicare For All, and seems more interested in rising up the ranks of power than actually taking bold stands for his constituents,” King said, adding that he thinks the caucus chairman, who is on a leadership fast-track, should be primaried “without hesitation.”

“The leadership of Congressman Hakeem Jeffries on criminal justice reform issues, including the dismantling of ‘stop-and-frisk’ in NYC, ending inmate-based gerrymandering in the state, electing former District Attorney Ken Thompson in Brooklyn and the recent passage of the Historic FIRST STEP act speaks for itself,” said Jeffries’ spokesperson Michael Hardaway. “If you don’t know, now you know.”

Asked if she agreed with King’s call for a primary challenge against Meeks and Jeffries, Rojas of the Justice Democrats dodged. “Every politician needs to be on notice,” she said.

But six months after Politico reported that Justice Democrats was weighing a potential challenge to Jeffries according to two sources with direct knowledge, the group has not produced a candidate against him or Meeks or any other New York lawmaker aside from Engel.

“[King] came into my district and tried to hold a rally and only eight people showed up,” said Meeks. “Come on after me. You think you can get me, come on.”

“I'm preparing; I know Hakeem is,” Meeks continued. “And if somebody decides to run, we're ready. But you're not going to catch us by surprise.”

Justice Democrats was doing God's work when they helped AOC win her "impossible" race to replace "the next Speaker," Joe Crowley. Hopefully they'll find other candidates as good and help bring them into Congress. But elections aren't about Justice Democrats, as much as Politico likes that narrative. Elections are about candidates... and if Justice Democrats have two so far, that's great... although that doesn't say much about the 86 others (and counting). You can help some of the candidates who have stepped forward far by contributing what you can to their campaigns. Just click on the Primarying a Blue Dog 2020 thermometer on the right, where you'll find carefully vetted progressive candidates Marie Newman (IL), Shaniyat Chowdhury (NY), Eva Putzova AZ) and Michael Owens (GA). 

Before he decided to take on Blue Dog David Scott in the suburbs south and southwest of Atlanta, David Owens had served as Cobb County Democratic Party chairman. He knows a lot about how the party works and he knows how tough primaries are for challengers. "This isn't a narrative about people primarying Democrat incumbents because it something cool to do. It is rooted in the awaking of people across the country who are demanding more of their elected officials and demanding that their voices count more than corporations and industry lobbyists. Many incumbents are finding themselves having to now look over their shoulder for challengers because they didn't bother to extend their hand  to the community in the past. The party has shifted towards values that are more progressive. And it isn't just the Democratic Party; millions of people in this country have shifted to more progressive stances on issues around health care, education, jobs, economic and environmental justice. These are platform issues that voters are demanding solutions to. Representatives who are unwilling to listen to what their constituents are asking for and instead continue to do the bidding of corporations will find themselves will a lot of free time on their hands next summer."

And now a few words from a former primary winner who helps explain what this mess in the Democratic Party really is all about.

Will The Republican Party EVER Be Able To Escape Its Own Congenital, Backward-Looking Obstructionism?

On the day Obama announced his nominee to fill Scalia's job was Merrick Garland, we made it clear what our opinion of the nomination is: Yuck! The political gamesmanship yielded up the most conservative nominee a Democrat has proposed to the Supreme Court in many decades. Terrible choice... but politically strategic. Easily, the worst of all outcomes would be that Garland gets confirmed in a lame duck session after a Bernie landslide pulls in a nearly filibuster-proof Democratic Senate that does not include Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Rob Portman (R-OH), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John McCain (R-AZ), Rand Paul (R-KY), Richard Burr (R-NC), and where Alan Grayson has replaced Marco Rubio. That would mean a Senate with 57 Democrats (as long as Vermont replaces Bernie with Peter Welch) and 43 pretty demoralized Republicanos. With Bernie in the White House and a healthy Democratic majority in the Senate, there would be no need to pick a conservative nominee. Even if Clinton wins the White House, she would likely pick a better nominee than Garland, likely nominate outstanding California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu.

But Democratic strategy has been to pressure vulnerable-- and even not-so-vulnerable-- Republicans to give Garland a fair hearing. Mark Kirk already met with him. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski said they will as well. And with editorialists across the country pounding on the GOP for their blatant and ugly obstructionism, even Kansas' Jerry Moran and far right ideologue Ron Johnson indicated that they might be open to a fair process. But then the pressure from the far right started mobilizing and-- poof-- Moran, Murkowski and Johnson instantly caved.

Johnson, who is the most likely Senate Republican to lose his seat in November, told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel on March 16 that he'd meet with Garland. "I have no problem with meeting with people. I'll have to say, I'm not sure what the point will be." He's since changed his perspective to "no comment." Moran, who has no viable opponent in November, but was blasted by the editors of the Kansas City Star on March 16, has been even worse.

Senators Jerry Moran of Kansas and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have reversed themselves and say they now back the decision made by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, not to hold hearings.

“Senator Moran called Senator Grassley to discuss his position,” said a statement released by Mr. Moran’s office on Friday. “As Senator Moran has said, he is opposed to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. He has examined Judge Garland’s record and didn’t need hearings to conclude that the nominee’s judicial philosophy, disregard for Second Amendment rights and sympathy for federal government bureaucracy make Garland unacceptable to serve on the Supreme Court.”

Mr. Moran’s announcement, first reported by National Review, came a week after he said the Senate should move forward with the nomination process, including holding hearings and meeting with Judge Garland.

“As I have said since the vacancy was created, I believe I have a duty to ask tough questions and demand answers,” he said in a statement on March 25. “I am certain a thorough investigation would expose Judge Garland’s record and judicial philosophy, and disqualify him in the eyes of Kansans and Americans.”

On March 21, according to the Garden City Telegram, Mr. Moran told constituents, “I would rather have you complaining to me that I voted wrong on nominating somebody than saying I’m not doing my job.”

Similarly, a spokeswoman for Ms. Murkowski, Karina Petersen, said the Alaska senator also no longer supported holding hearings, though she will meet with Judge Garland to discuss cases that are important to her state.

“Senator Murkowski respects the decision of the chair and members of the Judiciary Committee not to hold hearings on the nominee,” Ms. Petersen wrote in an email.

In February, before Mr. Obama named Judge Garland as his pick, Ms. Murkowski told reporters in Alaska that the nominee should be granted a hearing. Though she emphasized, in a Facebook post the next day, that she opposed Mr. Obama’s making the nomination, Ms. Murkowski had declined to directly address her stance on holding hearings since her comments in February.

As the right-wing psychos-- including the Koch brothers' pet congressman Mike Pompeo-- went nuts on Moran's ass, he backed away from even agreeing to meet with Garland. His latest statement, through an aide: "He has examined Judge Garland’s record and didn’t need hearings to conclude that the nominee’s judicial philosophy, disregard for Second Amendment rights and sympathy for federal government bureaucracy make Garland unacceptable to serve on the Supreme Court. Senator Moran remains committed to preventing this president from putting another justice on the highest court in the land."

Just a week earlier Moran told the Dodge City Daily Globe "I think we have the responsibility to have a hearing, to have the conversation and to make a determination of the merit... I think I have the responsibility to consider a nominee presented by a president and make a determination whether he or she is qualified. I'm willing to participate in the process" and had admitted that not meeting with Garland and not pushing for a hearing would be "not doing my job."

You would be severely mistaken if you thought the only thing making the GOP dysfunctional and detrimental to the United States is Donald Trump. The way extremists can push Republican senators like Moran, Johnson and Murkowski around go deeper than Trump's bizarre ego-trip. Political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson in yesterday's NY Times:

Given the current dysfunction of the Republican Party, many both inside and outside Republican ranks are probably hoping that a big defeat will force the party to change. But waiting, as the current president once put it, for the “fever” to break may be fruitless.

Try this setup instead: It’s 2017. After Mr. Trump’s landslide defeat, President Clinton has a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives. The Republican National Committee has just released its latest post-mortem-- it probably looks a lot like the post-2012 soul-searching exercise, the Growth and Opportunity Project, which encouraged moderation in tone and inclusiveness in policy.

But that blueprint is ignored. Instead, the party quickly regroups in opposition to the incoming administration. Most Republican voters hate Mrs. Clinton even more than they hated Mr. Obama. The conservative apparatus for sowing discontent with a new administration is in place, flush with cash and battle-tested.

For Republicans in and outside government, it will be a time not for facing up to hard truths but for doubling down on hardball tactics.

...More worrisome, they reinforce a dangerous spiral. The most effective Republican response to its own unpopularity in presidential elections is to take steps to make the American political system more unpopular still.

The final pre-primary polling for Wisconsin came out a few hours ago by Emerson and it shows that Bernie has surged past the establishment candidate and now leads her by 8 points (51-43%); in Emerson's last Wisconsin poll 2 weeks ago, Hillary was up by 6 points. Nice turn-around, which he'll need to do in New York as well. He's doing his part; are we doing ours? And, you know, it's not enough to support Bernie's bid for the presidency. His political revolution means replacing an obstructionist, corporately-owned Congress with a more progressive one. You can be part of that-- we all can. Whether you give $270 to one candidate or split $27 among all of them, please take a look at these progressives running on Bernie's platform... and do what you can:

2016-- Same Ole Dysfunctional GOP... Wasting Time Nurturing Their Same Petty Grievances

Yesterday Ryan passed his silly defund Planned Parenthood/repeal Obamacare bill and tried to make a big fuss with a seething right-wing base who already knows he sold them down the river. Not just Ryan, the whole GOP caucus was in on the charade. It passed 240-181 and there were only 3 Republicans present who didn't vote for it. Every other Republican Member of Congress is on record as wanting to kick around 15 million Americans off health insurance, bring back the donuts hole and revisit the glory days of preexisting conditions... as well as defunding Planned Parenthood for good measure. Richard Hanna (R-NY), the last actual moderate in the House GOP conference, is retiring at the end of the year but he had already voted against defunding Planned Parenthood the last time the Republicans tried it, 3 months ago. At the time, this is what he wrote on his website, explaining why he opposed the bill:

On this bill, I stand in support of women’s health care. More than 2.7 million women and men rely on Planned Parenthood for basic health care each year. Nearly 2.1 million have received family planning counseling and birth control, which has been proven to reduce abortions. More statistics include: 400,000 women received pap tests, 500,000 received a life-saving breast exam, and 88,000 instances of cancer were detected early and addressed, all in one year.

My question to the proponents of the bill is this: If we defund Planned Parenthood, what is the alternative? The answer: There isn’t one.

After Texas eliminated funding for Planned Parenthood, 42,000 women lost access to the healthcare provider of their choice. Most disturbing, the head of the association representing Texas Community Health Centers said they did not have the capacity to absorb those displaced patients. This bill will neither eliminate abortions, nor end the practice of fetal tissue donation.

Rather, it will only limit women’s access to health care: If enacted, this legislation would force 2.7 million people to lose their current doctor-- the very thing we rightly dislike about the Affordable Care Act.

The other two Republicans who voted NO yesterday are in the two bluest districts held by GOP incumbents and both are in extreme danger of losing their seats. John Katko is in Syracuse-based NY-24, a district with a PVI of D+7, where Obama beat McCain 56-42% and then beat Romney 57-41%. He beat Republican-lite New Dem Dan Maffei to win his seat in a midterm. This time he's likely to face a staunch and articulate progressive, Eric Kingson, founder of SocialSecurityWorks and in a year with either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton on the top of the ticket. Similar story for Bob Dold. He managed to win against a dreadful New Dem, Brad Schneider, is a solid blue D+8, in the same midterm and for the same reason: Schneider is a Wall Street-owned Republican-lite waste of a seat and progressives have no reason to bother coming out to the pollster garbage like that. Unfortunately, the DCCC is pushing him again-- even though there's a much better candidate running, Nancy Rotering. Remember, this north Chicagoland district gave Obama a 63-36% win over McCain and a 58-41% win over Romney. So Dold and Katko were just playing smart politics to cross the aisle and vote with the Democrats yesterday... or all the Democrats but one.

Minnesota Blue Dog Collin Peterson isn't really a Democrat at all. He's a corrupt reactionary in a red seat that will go to a real Republican if he retires, so the DCCC keeps propping him up, spending millions of dollars to get him reelected-- just so he can cross the aisle and vote with the GOP on virtually every contentious issue that hits Congress. If you contribute to the DCCC-- or any of their front organizations like EndCitizensUnited-- you are financing Collin Peterson and his war against health care and against women. Think about how the next time you get a DCCC letter asking you for money. There are no DINOs on this list, if you're interested in helping progressives win back the party and the Congress.

Before the vote today, one of California's more perceptive progressives, Ted Lieu congressional freshman class president, was on the floor seeing if he could shale lose a couple more like Hanna, Katko and Dold. No luck, but this is what he said:

Today the House Republican Caucus unveiled their "new" ideas for America: a 62nd repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and 11th attack on women’s healthcare, both of which are guaranteed to be vetoed by President Obama. One definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Repeal of the ACA would result in 22 million Americans losing their health insurance, including approximately 3.5 million Californians. Republicans have no plan to cover the millions of Americans they would plunge into health care crisis through an actual repeal. Millions more will also lose health care access if Planned Parenthood gets defunded. Hardworking American families deserve a sane, sensible agenda. If you want hyper-partisan bills that waste time, squander taxpayer resources and are destined to go nowhere, look at the GOP Agenda. If you want ideas that will move our nation forward-- such as investing in education, reducing carbon pollution and creating jobs-- take a look at the Democratic Agenda. At least we’re not insane.

After the vote was taken, Donna Edwards (D-MD) tried to help her constituents make sense of what the Republican Party has turned itself into and how they could take a vote like this. (There's even one in Maryland, Andy Harris, the right-wing crackpot who represents the Eastern shore and some of the suburbs north of Baltimore.) "Just six days into the New Year, Republicans picked right up where they left off in 2015 with this damaging Reconciliation bill," wrote Donna. "This irresponsible legislation would cause over 22 million hard-working Americans to lose their health care coverage. It would result in millions of women, many from low-income communities, being denied access to primary care, birth control, advice on family planning, and life-saving cancer screening services. Today’s vote exemplifies the definition of insanity, marking the 62nd attempt by House Republicans to repeal or dismantle the Affordable Care Act and the 11th attempt to defund Planned Parenthood. This Republican obsession with attacking access to health care for women and working families is outrageous and unacceptable. The American people want Congress to focus on real priorities, which include growing the economy, creating good-paying jobs, and improving the lives of working families. I continue to hope that House Republicans will recognize that the majority of Americans want them to end their attacks on the health care of women and working families, and join with House Democrats to make 2016 a year of progress for the American people." I'm glad she still has hope that the House Republicans are capable of change. What I hope is that the voters change them out. And, in fact, Donna is a candidate for the open U.S. Senate seat in Maryland and you can give her a hand here.