If Your Cup Of Tea Is A Nice Democrat With No Spine, I Have A Perfect List For You

Yes, Republicans check their spines at the front door-- but many Dems do too

Late Wednesday afternoon there was an interesting vote in the House. It was a GOP procedural move to prevent the Democrats from passing Pete DeFazio's infrastructure bill. The bill itself

• funds federal-aid highway, transit, and safety programs;
• reauthorizes surface transportation programs, including the federal-aid highway program, transit programs, highway safety, motor carrier safety, and rail programs;
• addresses climate change, including strategies to reduce the climate change impacts of the surface transportation system and conduct a vulnerability assessment to identify opportunities to enhance the resilience of the surface transportation system and ensure the efficient use of federal resources;
• revises Buy America procurement requirements for highways, mass transit, and rail;
• establishes a rebuild rural grant program to improve the safety, state of good repair, and connectivity of transportation infrastructure in rural communities;
• implements new safety requirements across all transportation modes; and
• directs the Department of Transportation to establish a pilot program to demonstrate a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee to restore and maintain the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and achieve and maintain a state of good repair in the surface transportation system.

Primarily because it deals with the Climate Crisis, the Republican Party opposes it. But they tricked the most weak and cowardly Democrats in the House into showing them colors by introducing an utterly anti-China amendment. They could have said, please raise your hands if you area gutless wonder who deserves to be defeated in November. There are only two Democrats who oppose the underlying bill itself, Blue Dog garbage Collin Peterson (MN) and Ben McAdams (UT). But 39 Democraps fell right into the Republican trap and voted for their recommit motion. You want to see a list of cowards and gutless wonders. Here they are, most of them the hideous DCCC recruits from 2018:

• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)
• TJ Cox (New Dem-CA)
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)
• Jason Crow (New Dem-CO), who passed himself off as a courageous military hero in 2018
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Antonio Delagado (NY)
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)
• Jared Golden (ME), who passed himself off as a courageous military hero in 2018
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Crissy Houlahan (New Dem-PA), who passed herself off as a courageous military hero in 2018
• Andy Kim (NJ)
• Conor Lamb (PA), who passed himself off as a courageous military hero in 2018
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)
• Dave Loebsack (IA)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Chris Pappas (New Dem-NH)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY), who passed himself off as a courageous military hero in 2018
• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA), who passed herself off as a courageous military hero in 2018
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)
• Lauren Underwood (IL)
• Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA)
• Susan Wild (New Dem-PA)

Am I telling anyone to work against these people in November? No... although, if you do, I wouldn't blame you. What I am saying is that if you vote for spineless garbage, you get a Congress filled with spineless garbage. So don't contribute to them and please think carefully and think twice about voting for any of them. They are self-obsessed careerists who don't deserve any kind of support from progressives, even if they are the lesser of evils.

Blue America's First June Endorsement-- Andru Volinsky For Governor

Blue America hasn't endorsed many candidates for governor this year. Governors, like senators, tend to be a little too establishment, a little too conservative-- and not leaders so much as managers. We just added a third-- Andru Volinsky of New Hampshire-- to our short list. This is for a late primary, September 8, in which Andru is being opposed by a establishment conservative Dan Feltes, a weak, tepid, dishonest and utterly useless minority leader of the state Senate. The winner will face off against GOP incumbent Chris Sununu. Bernie hasn't endorsed many candidates for governor either, but Volinksky was a sure bet for him too.

“Real change comes from the bottom up, not the top down,” Sanders said in the news release announcing the endorsement. “This is why we need candidates who champion the people and the issues at every level, in every state.”

Calling Volinsky a “progressive beacon in New Hampshire,” the news release cites his work as an attorney advocating for more equitable school funding and efforts on public-sector pensions and health care premiums.

"It is my honor and privilege to be endorsed by the next president of the United States, Bernie Sanders," Volinsky said in a statement emailed Thursday morning. "I endorsed Bernie Sanders for president twice because he’s been fighting for decades against the corrupting influence of money in politics, for robust public education funding, commuter rail, climate action, healthcare access, and addressing income inequality."

I was impressed at the way Volinsky has been taking on Sununu already, by, for example, calling for masks to be required by businesses for customers and employees, something Sununu refuses to do. Unlike the weak-knee-ed and complacent Feltes, Volinsky has been fearless when it comes to taking on Sununu, who he referred to as a "fake" and a "coward" for his power grab in spending COVID federal funds.

Governor Veto has blocked 57 bills passed by the legislature, many of them bipartisan, 4 times as many as any other governor, including renewable energy/net metering, campaign finance reform, independent redistricting, raising the minimum wage, paid family leave... Feltes is still too scared to take him on directly. Volinsky can beat this guy; Feitis doesn't have any chance at all in November.

New Hampshire has towns now with no science teachers, even no elementary schools, because of their wack ass tax system that relies exclusively on property taxes. There is no income tax and there are no sales taxes. If you ask me, Andru is running for governor primarily because he sued the state in 1997 in what was known  as the landmark "Claremont decision" which said the state has a broken taxation and funding system that shortchanges children who live in property-poor towns. Since that time,  governors of both parties have refused to reform the taxation system, agreeing with what's known in New Hampshire as "The Pledge" meaning you will NEVER consider a broadbased tax-- neither income nor sales. Any Democrat who doesn't take "The Pledge" scares the hell out of the establishment which assumes it's a political loser. Feltes, of course, eagerly took The Pledge. Andru Volinsky is even prouder to have not and it is a quality Blue America ultimately judges progressive candidates on: political courageousness. I asked André to address it when introducing himself. Please read on and then consider contributing to his campaign by clicking on the Blue America 2020 gubernatorial thermometer above.


I'll Bring Progressive, Principled Leadership to NH
-by Andru Volinsky





The COVID-19 pandemic has created waves of fear and uncertainty across New Hampshire. It’s also exposed just how important governors are. Too often, progressives have overlooked the importance of State Houses. With redistricting just around the corner, New Hampshire offers the best opportunity for Democrats to win back a state house. Governors make life or death decisions and they are the best bulwark to stand up against President Trump. The current governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, is part of a political dynasty. His father was governor and President George H.W. Bush’s chief of staff, a position he used to single-handedly stall progress on climate change. His brother was a senator while another brother works at a climate denial think tank. And Sununu has his sights set on a U.S. Senate seat in 2022 challenging Senator Maggie Hassan. Progressives must do everything we can to stop him now.

As the only candidate for governor endorsed by Bernie Sanders so far in 2020, I believe the only way we win this race is by having the courage to lead. I went to a struggling high school in Levittown, Pennsylvania, a town where the mill failed. I watched my father work as a mechanic and maintenance man. I am still the only person in my family to attend college, which I did on scholarship and by working as a carpenter. I became a lawyer and worked against the death penalty because I wanted to make a difference and fight for justice.

I became the lead lawyer in the Claremont School Funding Case, which in 1997 established a constitutional right to an adequate state-funded public education for every child in New Hampshire. Because our state has no sales or income tax, we rely solely on ever crushing property taxes to fund education. Because too many state leaders live in fear of reforming our broken revenue system, the state isn’t living up to its responsibilities. And we’re passing down more fear to the next generation, which already has the deck stacked against them. In Berlin, a struggling town in the North Country, I met a 4th grader named Aurora who wants to be a doctor. She’s already behind her peers who live in districts funded by property-rich ski hill mansions because Berlin has no chemistry teachers. I won’t take what’s known in New Hampshire as “The Pledge” to never change our revenue system, because we need an honest conversation about our tax structure, which will never change as long as we lack the courage to challenge the conventional wisdom both parties adhere to.

Here’s another place we need more courage: the corrupting influence of money in politics. Too many politicians, Republican and Democratic alike, fear losing re-election if they don’t sell out to the highest bidder. They exploit the LLC loophole that here in New Hampshire, allows wealthy individuals to contribute more than the individual limit through multiple limited liability companies. I’m running my campaign in a different way: tearing up corporate checks from companies trying to buy my vote. I’ve never had to return corporate or LLC checks from this campaign, because I’ve refused them in the first place. I’m the only candidate to specifically take the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge and sadly the only candidate who opposes dangerous fracked-gas pipelines like the controversial Granite Bridge pipeline. For my stance against pipelines, I earned the Sierra Club’s endorsement.

Governor Sununu has halted all progress in the state on important issues such as raising our woeful $7.25 minimum wage, on campaign finance reform, independent redistricting, and renewable energy. His 57 vetoes this past term were a record for a governor. I’ve worked tirelessly to hold him accountable in my role on the Executive Council, which serves as a New Hampshire board of directors. We approve state contracts over $10,000, approve or deny nominees to state department heads and judges, and start the state’s 10-year transportation plan. I’ve vetoed Sununu’s unqualified nominees to environmental posts who had no plan for addressing climate change (Peter Kujawski), and who claimed fracking was environmentally safe (Michael Vose). I’ve kept Attorney General Gordon MacDonald, who had no experience as a judge and a 30-year documented history of antagonism toward reproductive rights, from being New Hampshire’s Chief Justice for our Supreme Court. And where I’ve been unable to veto Frank Edelblut, our equivalent of Betsy DeVos who is in charge of education, I’ve been able to deny him a raise and keep him from using grants to open new charter schools at the expense of our already-struggling public schools.

Here’s the truth: New Hampshire can raise its embarrassingly low $7.25 minimum wage to at least $15 an hour. New Hampshire can be a leader in ushering in new jobs in solar and wind, and retraining fossil fuel workers- i.e. the Green New Deal. New Hampshire can make healthcare more affordable, make voting by mail accessible to all, and become a place that retains young people. It’s time for political courage: it’s the only way we’ll beat Sununu and stop his rise. Bernie won New Hampshire twice by sticking to his vision and I know with your help and support, we can elect a progressive governor here.

Guest Post By Mayo Pete

Everyone I know has come to absolutely hate Mayo Pete, mostly due to the fact that he's a plastic phony careerist running for president because of himself, not because of the American people. Was he always such a creep? When he was a senior in high school closeted young Pete won the John F Kennedy Presidential Library's annual Profiles in Courage Essay Contest. This was Mayo Pete in 2000. Please read it and then hink about how far backwards he's fallen in 20 years!

In this century, there are a daunting number of important issues which are to be confronted if we are to progress as a nation. Each must be addressed thoroughly and energetically. But in order to accomplish the collective goals of our society, we must first address how we deal with issues. We must reexamine the psychological and political climate of American politics. As it stands, our future is at risk due to a troubling tendency toward cynicism among voters and elected officials. The successful resolution of every issue before us depends on the fundamental question of public integrity.

A new attitude has swept American politics. Candidates have discovered that it is easier to be elected by not offending anyone rather than by impressing the voters. Politicians are rushing for the center, careful not to stick their necks out on issues. Most Democrats shy away from the word “liberal” like a horrid accusation. Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush uses the centrist rhetoric of “compassionate conservatism” while Pat Buchanan, once considered a mainstream Republican, has been driven off the ideological edge of the GOP. Just as film producers shoot different endings and let test audiences select the most pleasing, some candidates run “test platforms” through sample groups to see which is most likely to win before they speak out on a major issue. This disturbing trend reveals cynicism, a double-sided problem, which is perhaps the greatest threat to the continued success of the American political system.

Cynical candidates have developed an ability to outgrow their convictions in order to win power. Cynical citizens have given up on the election process, going to the polls at one of the lowest rates in the democratic world. Such an atmosphere inevitably distances our society from its leadership and is thus a fundamental threat to the principles of democracy. It also calls into question what motivates a run for office-- in many cases, apparently, only the desire to occupy it. Fortunately for the political process, there remain a number of committed individuals who are steadfast enough in their beliefs to run for office to benefit their fellow Americans. Such people are willing to eschew political and personal comfort and convenience because they believe they can make a difference. One outstanding and inspiring example of such integrity is the country’s only independent congressman, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders.

Sanders’s courage is evident in the first word he uses to describe himself: “socialist.” In a country where “communism” is still the dirtiest of ideological dirty words, in a climate where even liberalism is considered radical, and socialism is immediately and perhaps willfully confused with communism, a politician dares to call himself a socialist? He does indeed. Here is someone who has “looked into his own soul” and expressed an ideology, the endorsement of which, in today’s political atmosphere, is analogous to a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Even though he has lived through a time in which an admitted socialist could not act in a film, let alone hold a congressional seat, Sanders is not afraid to be candid about his political persuasion.

After numerous political defeats in his traditionally Republican state, Sanders won the office of mayor of Burlington by ten votes. A successful and popular mayor, he went on to win Vermont’s one congressional seat in 1990. Since then, he has taken many courageous and politically risky stands on issues facing the nation. He has come under fire from various conservative religious groups because of his support for same-sex marriages. His stance on gun control led to NRA-organized media campaigns against him. Sanders has also shown creativity in organizing drug-shopping trips to Canada for senior citizens to call attention to inflated drug prices in the United States.

While impressive, Sanders’s candor does not itself represent political courage. The nation is teeming with outspoken radicals in one form or another. Most are sooner called crazy than courageous. It is the second half of Sanders’s political role that puts the first half into perspective: he is a powerful force for conciliation and bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. In Profiles in Courage, John F. Kennedy wrote that “we should not be too hasty in condemning all compromise as bad morals. For politics and legislation are not matters for inflexible principles or unattainable ideals.” It may seem strange that someone so steadfast in his principles has a reputation as a peacemaker between divided forces in Washington, but this is what makes Sanders truly remarkable. He represents President Kennedy’s ideal of “compromises of issues, not of principles.”

Sanders has used his unique position as the lone independent congressman to help Democrats and Republicans force hearings on the internal structure of the International Monetary Fund, which he sees as excessively powerful and unaccountable. He also succeeded in quietly persuading reluctant Republicans and President Clinton to ban the import of products made by underage workers. Sanders drew some criticism from the far left when he chose to grudgingly endorse President Clinton’s bids for election and reelection as president. Sanders explained that while he disagreed with many of Clinton’s centrist policies, he felt that he was the best option for America’s working class.

Sanders’s positions on many difficult issues are commendable, but his real impact has been as a reaction to the cynical climate which threatens the effectiveness of the democratic system. His energy, candor, conviction, and ability to bring people together stand against the current of opportunism, moral compromise, and partisanship which runs rampant on the American political scene. He and a few others like him have the power to restore principle and leadership in Congress and to win back the faith of a voting public weary and wary of political opportunism. Above all, I commend Bernie Sanders for giving me an answer to those who say American young people see politics as a cesspool of corruption, beyond redemption. I have heard that no sensible young person today would want to give his or her life to public service. I can personally assure you this is untrue.

Let me switch gears for a moment. Blue America vets congressional candidates and one of the screens we apply is a tough one on us to get it right. We want to know how courageous candidates will be when they confront the swamp that is Congress. Sure, we expect all of our candidates to be good on issues-- like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, for example-- but political courage is essential. We made a grievous error at one time-- until recently in fact-- by assuming that someone has been in the military and had shown courage there, they would do the same in Congress. The vets among the Class of 2018 are among the most cowardly, in a political sense, we have ever observed. Most of them are more prone to do what they're told by the House leadership and to calculate political career advantage than ever take any kind of a principled stand. I have seen the polar opposite of freshmen veterans like Max Rose, Elaine Luria, Gil Cisneros, Chrissy Houlahan, Jason Crow and Jared Golden-- the biggest disappointment since we endorsed him based on what we thought was courageousness. We've revamped the screening process and I doubt a Jared Golden would ever slip through again. Meanwhile, apropo of nothing, I wanted to pass along that among a super-courageous bunch of candidates, the one that has amazed me consistently and the most often in terms of courageousness is Eva Putzova. I also noticed that Blue America members are probably seeing something like that too, since she had gotten the most in contributions through our members. She deserves the help. If you haven't chipped in yet-- or if you want to give more... that's what the thermometer is for. Oh-- and look who else noticed this week:

Careerism Vs Courage-- How Will They Play Out In The Impeachment Vote?

Saturday morning, I pointed out on Twitter that though Pelosi managed to hold the entire Democratic caucus together to pass H.R.-3, her rather weak drug price reduction bill, just before the vote, the Republicans offered a way to kill the legislation via a Motion to Recommit. That failed but 3 super-conservative fake-Democrats voted with all the Republicans for it-- Blue Dogs Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Mikie Sherrill (NJ) and Ben McAdams (UT). Another Twitter user, Maria, offered up a typical excuse for this kind of bad vote: "NJ is big Pharma territory."

What she meant is that several drug companies are based in New Jersey. The Big PhRMA companies-- Pfizer, Amgen-- Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Merck, AstraZeneca, Abbott Labs, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Milan, Bayer, etc-- give millions of dollars in bribes to many members of Congress annually. Last cycle, New Jersey's delegation did pretty well. Among the current House members, the biggest amounts went to:

• Frank Pallone (D)- $117,200
• Bonnie Watson Coleman (D)- $59,812
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog)- $49,280
• Bill Pascrell (D)- $45,500
• Don Norcross (New Dem)- $38,900
• candidate Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog)- $35,311
• candidate Tom Malinowski (New Dem)- $24,097
• Donald Payne (D)- $20,800
• candidate Andy Kim (D)- $19,018
• Chris Smith (R)- $12,250
• candidate Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog)- $7,228

But the impetus for bribery from these savvy companies--and from their lobbyists-- follows power, not geography. Pallone didn't get a lion's share of loot ($694,170 since he was elected) because he represents Middlesex and Monmouth counties, but because he is chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and can-- and does-- protect the drug companies from progressive legislation like Medicare-for-All. The 5 current House members who have taken the most in bribes from PhRMA are those who serve their masters best, not those who live in their districts:

• Fred Upton (R-MI)- former chair of Energy and Commerce- $943,531
• Anna Eshoo (D-CA), chair, Energy and Commerce's Heath Subcommittee- $891,815
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- corrupt minority leader- $849,550
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- corrupt majority leader- $719,572
• Frank Pallone (D-NJ)- chair of Energy and Commerce- $694,170

A warning from progressive California congressional candidate Cenk Uygur: "Drug companies don't give politicians money for charity, they do it to buy them. And unfortunately it works. Everyone knows these are bribes. The only people who won't acknowledge it are corporate politicians on both sides and the corporate media. This is a sick system that lets people die for profit. Any politician that takes money from the drug companies is selling out their voters on behalf of their donors."

On Friday evenings, Chris Hayes has taken to doings his MSNBC shows in front of a live audience. This week one of his guests was Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown (D). In his last couple of seconds on the air, Brown managed to blurt out one of the most crucial things he has ever said about electoral politics and how it impacts American politics. Unfortunately an ad was calling and it never got discussed on the show: "If politicians are willing to lose an election, they're always better at their job." That idea goes beyond geography, beyond sources of campaign funds, beyond ideology, even beyond partisan affiliation. It goes to character-- integrity, honesty, sense of honor... courageousness. Nothing else much matters in politics without it.

It's the opposite of political careerism. And it speaks to the real reason why craven and cowardly political hacks like Gottheimer, Sherrill and McAdams were willing to cross the aisle and vote with the GOP to kill a bill that would reduce the cost of medicine for their constituents in Bergen County, in Morris County and in Salt Lake County.

In the next few days, Pelosi will tell Hoyer to call an impeachment vote. Several Democrats in difficult districts have already announced they intend to vote to hold Trump accountable for his on-going criminal behavior. One, putrid New Jersey Blue Dog Jefferson Van Drew (widely expected to bolt the party and seek reelection as a Republican) has said he is absolutely voting against impeachment. He's not even in a prohibitively red district. Obama won the NJ-02 district comfortably both times he ran. Trump won in 2016-- 50.6% to 46.0%-- not because the district had suddenly turned red, but because Hillary was such a lousy candidate for the working class voters who dominate the district. The PVI is just R+1, not that much of a stretch for a Democrat.

There are no normal Democrats talking about voting against impeachment, but there are around a dozen from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party who are... all Blue Dogs and New Dems, of course. These are the other Democrats besides Van Drew who are most likely to vote against impeachment... along with their districts' PVIs. (Notice that 3 are in blue districts.)

• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- R+12
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- R+6
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- R+13
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- R+10
• Chrissy Houlahan (New Dem-PA)- D+2
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)- R+3
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)- R+2
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)- D+6
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- R+4
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- R+6
• Ed Case (Blue Dog-HI)- D+17

Some of the least courageous of the usual wafflers have aleady come out to say they are voting to impeach the bastard, including Elaine Luria (VA), Max Rose (NY), Conor Lamb (PA), Colin Allred (TX), Susan Wild (PA), Susie Lee (NV) and Tom O’Halleran (AZ). O'Halleran, a former Republican legislator currently pretending to be a Democrat, is now a Blue Dog. He has a very intense primary from progressive activist Eva Putzova and that has, of late, moved him towards the mainstream on issues-- like this-- where he would be more comfortable voting with the Republicans. In his announcement Friday, he said that "Trump abused the power of the presidency and broke his oath of office when he bribed the nation of Ukraine by withholding military aid they had already been promised in exchange for help investigating a political opponent. I will vote to impeach the President because this bribery and abuse of power violated the constitution and put our national security and our international relationships at risk." It's lucky we have Putzova pushing him so hard.

Last summer progressive Democrat Teresa Tomlinson called for impeaching Trump. She's running for a Senate seat held by an extreme Trump partisan, David Perdue. At the time, Tomlinson wrote that "It’s fear that cripples the Democratic Party. Fear of our policies, fear of who we are, and fear of the Republicans. Yes, fear is what has politically cost us in the last many election cycles. One cannot lead if one is afraid. The thing about leadership is that people want their leaders to be brave. They care less about what you think on the issues than whether you have the moxie to fight for them and the strength of conviction to tell them what you really think... That’s what the Right can’t stand about The Squad. Those women are fearless about their beliefs. They refuse to be bullied, and that is dangerous to the Republican playbook of shaming scared Democrats into milk toast, mealy-mouthed, baby-splitting positions that are equivocal and stand for nothing. American voters revile those who won’t tell the people what they think. Even if you don’t support the policies-- or certainly some of the statements-- of The Squad, you can’t deny that you appreciate that they unabashedly tell the world what they think." She continued with a statement all Democrats wavering and quivering in fear-- especially an arch-coward like Brindisi-- should study:

Impeachment is not about undoing the last election or impacting the next. It certainly is not about the polls as the Founding Framers made perfectly clear in Federalist Paper, No. 66. It is about stopping a president who would abuse and misuse the power of the presidency so that not another day passes-- not another circumstance presents itself-- where a president, unfit for duty because of the commission of High Crimes or Misdemeanors (defined as misdeeds) can inflict his/her poor judgment on the office, the country, or the people. Oh, if only impeachment proceedings had been instituted sooner, the damage that might have been averted.

Instead, Democrats are afraid of what the Republicans will say about it-- what the bullies will do to us on the way home. So, we cut through the alley to avoid the fight and controversy. We detour our duty of leadership and good government. Commencing impeachment proceedings is about employing the constitutional duty that our elected leaders were sworn to do-- not about mitigating to the finish line and hoping no one notices that we wouldn’t use the tools entrusted to us to keep the American system on the rails. All Democrats, and many Independents and Republicans, understand that Donald Trump has committed High Crimes or Misdemeanors, so if this conduct doesn’t warrant the commencement of impeachment proceedings, then what would? We must seriously consider the example of tolerance for harmful conduct at the highest levels of our government we are creating.

The key to winning is that you don’t aim to win, you aim to lead. If you lead, the winning takes care of itself-- or at least you move the needle so profoundly you set up the next winner, as did Stacey Abrams in Georgia with her heroic non-loss in Georgia. She was who she was and voters responded to that.

That’s not fear, that’s winning.

Tired Of Our Side Being Represented By Scaredy Cats? More Milquetoast Not What You're Looking For?

I talk to candidates all day, 7 days a week. I'm so sick of hearing from "progressives" who back Medicare-for-All but are afraid to say the words... or of Democrats who believe in the Green New Deal as much as I do but have been counseled to not use the term or to speak out about it too much. One candidate who I've known for years and I know is a progressive told me he's running a moderate campaign-- in a deep, deep blue district, because a Blue Dog piece of shit in a red district told him that is the only way to win. Do you want more Democrats like Ted Lieu, Rashida Tlaib, Alan Grayson, Jamie Raskin, Barbara Lee, Ilhan Omar, Ro Khanna, Maxine Waters and AOC who speak out and speak loudly and plainly? I do... and that's why I'm part of Blue America and work to raise money for progressive courageous candidates.

Last cycle the DCCC sold voters on the proposition that a bunch of veterans were brave and bold and would make great members of Congress. What a tragic joke that turned out to be. They may have been heroic on the battlefield but they sure are a pack of cowardly careerists afraid of their own shadows in Congress. The military freshman are nearly all among the worst, tepid, wishy-washy Democrats in the House-- Chrissy Houlahan (who never saw any combat), Jason Crow, Max Rose, Jared Golden, Conor Lamb (no combat duty), Gil Cisneros (no combat duty), Mikey Sherrill (no combat duty), Elaine Luria (no combat duty) all have something in common-- F ratings from ProgressivePunch. They served their country but that hasn't made them good members of Congress, not even a little.

I'm looking for men and women candidates who are not so scared shitless of losing that they buckle under to corporate interests and give a shit about what careerist garbage like Chuck Schumer and Steny Hoyer have to say. And, I'm happy to say that this cycle there are plenty of them-- from Rebecca Parson (WA) on the most northwesterly piece of the continental United States to Brianna Wu (MA) in one of the districts furthest east. And in between: Jessica Ventura (IL), Kim Williams (CA), Nate McMurray (NY), Michael Owens (GA), Eva Putzova (AZ), Mike Siegel (TX), Morgan Harper (OH), Jason Butler (NC), Mark Gamba (OR)...

How do I know they're going to be courageous? That's a good question and it has a lot to do with my gut-- which is not infallible. Blue America doesn't ask candidates to fill out questionnaires. We try to get to know them. Even then, we sometimes get played. Last year we called it right with AOC but I couldn't have been more wrong with Jared Golden. This cycle we're being extra-careful. Do you think there's any chance Rebecca Parson will ever sell out? Look at that twitter page: "Queer democratic socialist running for Congress in WA-06. No corporate or lobbyist money. Fighting for a home for us all-- not just the wealthiest few." I guarantee you she's not joining the Blue Dogs or New Dems. In fact, the mealy-mouthed conservative she'd be replacing is Derek Kilmer, the head of the New Dems. And speaking of Twitter... do you follow Nate McMurray? If not, you should. He's running in one of the reddest districts in the whole northwest and instead of running as the Republican-lite Blue Dog that the DCCC wants, he's on Twitter every day extolling progressive policies and beating up on Trump and his congressional enablers.

And look at this brief inter-change in the comments section between an anonymous commenter and Rachel Ventura, another kick-ass progressive taking on another mealy-mouthed New Dem (Bill Foster):

Anonymous said...

Rachel may sound nice, but she can in no way ever be better than the house tyrant that she shall endorse -- Pelosi -- who is pure unadulterated corrupt fascist shit.

vote for Rachel if you feel the need. But do it with open eyes. The best you can hope for is that Pelosi and the democrap party won't be much worse than they've/she's been for the past 2 generations.

6:10 PM
 Unknown said...

Why are you assuming I would endorse Pelosi? I would like to see a progressive run for leadership and would support that person.

Brianna Wu knows how to stand up to the alt-right-- and she's already shown us how it's done. She was targeted by Steve Bannon and his cronies during the Gamergate controversy, which later became the Trump playbook. She suffered through numerous death and rape threats, stalking, brick being thrown through her window, threats against her family... you name it. Instead of backing down, she spoke out about the misogynistic treatment of women in the tech industry. And now she's running for Congress, against a conservative New Dem, in part to hold tech companies accountable for facilitating cyberbullying and to create cybersecurity standards to protect consumer and voter information online. All that takes courage-- and Brianna personifies it.

To Arizona progressive Eva Putzova the seemingly impossible is just another challenge. And it makes sense if you consider that she is part of the generation that knocked down the walls and overthrew the totalitarian regime in 1989 in former Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution. She ran for and was elected to the Flagstaff City Council in 2014 as an avowed progressive when even many so-called "liberals"  doubted she could win that way. When informed initially by some attorneys that Arizona state law prohibited cities from establishing their own minimum wage, she researched the law herself, discovered they were wrong, and initiated a lawsuit that was victorious. She had the guts to take on the State of Arizona and challenge the legislative overreach. She led a successful initiative campaign to raise the minimum wage in Flagstaff to $15 per hour with virtually no support from the established electeds who were unsure of the outcome and unwilling to stick their necks out. Then when the Chamber of Commerce and its allied dark-money groups, including the Koch Brothers, sought to repeal the initiative, she defeated that effort as well by mobilizing the community to defend what they had just voted to approve. During these struggles, she was subjected to verbal and written abuse, xenophobic attacks on her accent, desecration of her campaign materials, and other threats. Some of this has continued since she announced she was running for Congress in AZ-01, daring to challenge a Blue Dog incumbent-- a corporate 'Democrat' who votes with Trump 40% of the time. Her opponents have included some privileged Democrats as well as Republican defenders of the status quo. She has faced this adversity by working harder, winning over voters, increasing her public profile, building a truly grassroots campaign operation and affirming her values of peace, justice, inclusion, and equality for all. Here at DWT and anyone watching in AZ-01, her courage is there for all to see.

Mark Gamba, is the progressive mayor of Milwaukie, Oregon and he's facing off against reactionary Blue Dog Kurt Schrader. "It's hard, he told me yesterday, "to run against an incumbent who is a millionaire and who takes stacks of cash from every evil corporation there is. It's doubly hard to continue working as an unpaid mayor, while running a full time congressional campaign and having to raise money the hard way: $27 at a time, from the people. Also imagine being a freshman congressman with no power, realizing that you have 10 years to stop climate change. The only way a freshman Congressman can have much effect is to break the rules, to be loud, to expose the lies and the  hypocrisy. In other words to buck the status quo and to piss off the most powerful people in the world. Even the Democratic Party is an obstacle, the DCCC issuing an edict to keep campaign workers away. The difficulty and expense of simply getting the voter files. The myriad of campaign rules designed to tilt the playing field towards the incumbents and the wealthy. The very real likelihood that when I start showing well in the polls they will attack me personally and attempt to smear my character. But what choice do we have? If we continue in the current system, the people that will almost always end up in Congress are the ones that will never solve the problems, because they, or someone very much like them are the ones that caused the problems in the 1st place. The system is broken, if we hope to save our democracy and our planet's very ability to support life, we will have to break the current system."

Kim Williams, a professor and former Obama era diplomat, is running against an entrenched Blue Dog the DCCC back, Jim Costa. "If Democrats are working on healthcare, jobs creation, and anti-corruption, you wouldn’t know it here," she told me today. "They take the same money from the same corporations as Republicans and this all leads to the same outcome. Billionaire growers get tax breaks and subsidies while working families struggle to survive. Jim Costa continues to cater to the wishes of the few over the needs of the many. Even in this solid blue district, he did not want to ruffle wealthy, conservative feathers. It took two-thirds of his peers to sign on for impeachment before he would join in, and even then he left mention of this vote out of his newsletter. When challenged, he always referenced the polling data. Not once did he speak to whether this was simply the right thing to do. These talking points point to a party that is more concerned with promises that keep them in power than real results to help their base. Now, more than ever, we need representatives with the political courage to speak truth to power and stand up for what’s right. These talking points don’t match reality, and voters can see right through it."

Wake County pastor, Jason Butler is running in a rural red district that Democrats usually give a pass to; that's brave in itself. But that's hardly the beginning. When we first met he told me how, when he was living in Milwaukee, he was part of a community organizing effort that stood up to 5 major banks for their role in the foreclosure crisis. He stood before 1,000 people and elected officials and bank executives and demanded they put an end to their practices that were destroying under-resourced neighborhoods and make a $20 million commitment to re-invest in those neighborhoods. I doubt he learned that in pastor-school. And, a pastor, he publicly stood up to the UMC for their decision to exclude LGBTQ individuals from full access and organized a rally to fight for full inclusion, organizing a group-- Sacred Witness-- to continue the fight for full inclusion. He's probably even better known as the white pastor who openly talks about the affects of racism and systematic oppression and exclusion of communities of color in rural North Carolina-- especially how the industrial prison complex has functioned as a new Jim Crow to intentionally disrupt and destabilize the African-American community. When I first interviewed him for an endorsement he told me he'll "strive to always stand for justice for the marginalized and pushed aside. Society has handed me great privilege as a white male and I am committed to using that to fight for equality, justice, and the common good-- not just to gain more power for myself."

Republicans Deserve The Blame They Get-- But There Are Still 25 House Dems-- Led By DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos-- Who Refuse To Back An Assault Weapons Ban

Three freshmen members of Congress who no one in their right mind will ever accuse of being courageous are Kim Schier (New Dem-WA), Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA) and Colin Allred (D-TX). Schrier's district is 72.3% suburban, the rest being about equally urban and rural. Luria's is over 95% urban and suburban; just 4.5% rural. And Allred's is 100% urban and suburban-- no rural precincts at all. On Friday Schier, Luria and Allred became the 209th, 210th and 211th members of Congress to sign on as co-sponsors to Dave Cicilline's bill to ban the sale of assault weapons, H.R. 1296. Pelosi has had the bill bottled up in the House Judiciary Committee since February 15. It took 3 more GOP/NRA gun massacres to get cowards like Schier, Luria and Allred to support it. I'm sure they feel like they're heroes now. The bill even had it's first official Republican co-sponsor, Peter King (August 16), before they-- pardon the metaphor, pulled the trigger. In all, 20 members (19 Dems, almost all of them New Dems and Blue Dogs) signed on after the spate of massacres, during the summer recess. Most of them represent suburban districts where support for banning assault weapons is more than just a majority; it's now an issue that will help determine who wins in 2020 and who loses.

Opposition to banning assault weapons still exists with some significance in backward rural areas. Few of the cowards who signed on represent backward rural areas. Better late than never. There are still 25 Democrats refusing to back the bill-- primarily Blue Dogs like top NRA-champions Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) and Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), "former" Republican Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), DCCC chair Cheri Bustos (New Dem-IL), Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Ron Kind (New Dem-WI), Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ), Lauren Underwood (IL), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS), Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL), Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC), Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX), Andy Kim (Suicidal-NJ), Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI) and Xochitl Torres-Small (Blue Dog-NM).

A new poll for ABC News and the Washington Post was released yesterday that shows widespread support for gun control, including the assault weapons sales ban. Mike DeBonis and Emily Guskin wrote for The Post that "Americans across party and demographic lines overwhelmingly support expanded background checks for gun buyers and allowing law enforcement to temporarily seize weapons from troubled individuals." They wrote that Señor Trumpanzee and Republicans "face fresh pressure to act" but forgot to mention all the Blue Dogs and New Dems still sitting on the fence. Instead they point out that the poll shows that "More Americans say they trust congressional Democrats over Trump to handle the nation’s gun laws, 51 percent to 36 percent, with independents siding with Democrats by a 17-point margin-- a divide that could have political ramifications for the 2020 presidential and congressional elections."

On The Fence by Nancy Ohanian

Trump, the NRA, Blue Dogs and Republicans will no doubt put up a weak and useless background check bill and say "ok, happy now? It won't do any good." And they're right; it won't. The 89% of Americans who support expanding federal background checks include massive majorities of Republicans, of gun owners and even of lunatic fringe white evangelicals. Right now McConnell is the main problem, saying he won't allow the Senate to vote on anything until Trump agrees to back it.

Cicilline: "This is a pattern. They sort of hope time passes and people forget about it. The good news is, the American people are not going to let them forget about it. They’re going to demand that Congress and the Senate do something to reduce gun violence in this country." Sloppily, DeBonis and Guskin reported that "A growing number of Democrats-- and a few Republicans-- have signed on to a Cicilline-authored bill reimposing a version of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing Sept. 25 on the bill-- a significant step for Democratic leaders who have long treated an assault weapons ban as too politically risky." They reporters are incorrect about "a few Republicans" signing on to Cicilline's bill. Several have agreed to vote for it on the House floor but only one-- Peter King-- is a co-sponsor. "In a sign of the changing politics, several of those joining the assault weapons bill are freshmen Democrats who won suburban districts previously represented by Republicans. “I don’t really see any reason for ordinary citizens to own weapons of war,” said Rep. Susan Wild (New Dem-PA), who represents a moderate Lehigh Valley district."

The obstacles continue to be Republicans who argue that the Democratic bills would infringe on law-abiding gun owners’ constitutional rights while doing little to prevent the actual causes of mass shootings. That is a perspective shared with a highly motivated slice of the party’s conservative base and promoted by its most aggressive advocacy group, the NRA.

“My concern is that what’s being proposed is not going to solve the root-cause problem,” Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) told reporters in mid-August when asked about red flag laws.

But there is a rising concern in the GOP that the party is putting itself at risk if it doesn’t take some kind of action to address the epidemic of mass bloodshed.

“If we’re not willing to do the common-sense stuff, probably legislation will occur that we’ll regret, that will actually, I think, infringe upon Second Amendment rights down the road, so I’m going to be one that’s going to look to try to do something,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) told reporters Friday.

Several Republicans have expressed openness to federal legislation on red flag laws, which are also known as “extreme-risk protection orders,” including such influential lawmakers as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (SC) and Sen. Marco Rubio (FL).

Daines suggested instead that juveniles who commit serious crimes or make felonious threats be prevented from purchasing weapons as adults-- a proposal that is getting serious consideration for inclusion in the White House package.

ABC News added that some groups are more likely to support gun control than others. "Among those who are very or somewhat worried that a mass shooting could occur in their community, 67 percent support banning the sale of assault weapons. That drops to 39 percent support among those who are less concerned about an attack occurring in their area. There are other big differences among groups when it comes to the assault weapons question. Women are 20 percentage points more likely than men to support banning the sale of these weapons, 65 percent versus 45 percent. While support is higher in urban areas than elsewhere, there’s a broad gap between urban women (of whom 73 percent support a ban) and urban men (of whom 52 percent do). And among political independents, 72 percent of women favor a ban, compared with 43 percent of men. Education is also a sharp divider. Support for banning assault weapons rises with more education, ranging from 72 percent of those with postgraduate degrees to 46 percent of those with no more than a high school diploma. But here, too, gender influences attitudes. Among women who haven’t gone beyond high school, 55 percent back an assault weapons ban; among their male counterparts, it’s 38 percent. Support for a ban reaches 71 percent among blacks, compared with 52 percent among whites. It differs by age, ranging from 63 percent among seniors to 49 percent among young adults. (Perhaps counterintuitively, support for banning assault weapons sales is higher among seniors even though they tend to be more conservative politically.) And politics is a very prominent factor, as likely will soon be on display in Washington. Eighty-one percent of Democrats support an assault weapons ban, compared with 55 percent of independents and 33 percent of Republicans."

Would You Like To Know If Candidates Will Back The Green New Deal BEFORE You Vote For Them?

Blue America's newest endorsee is Jason Butler, the progressive candidate taking on reactionary Trump enabler George Holding in a North Carolina red district (NC-02) that has started trending purple. Last cycle, Holding only eked out a bare 51.3% win-- in a district where Obama lost both times and where Trump beat Hillary by over 10 points! It's just a matter of time-- and Butler makes a good case for why that time is now.

Earlier in the week Jason shared some of his approach to the campaign with us. Since then he decided to tell his supporters about why battling the Climate Crisis is a major part of why he decided to run for Congress. "As a dad with three young kids, I think a lot about the kind of world my generation will pass on to the next," he wrote. "And as a pastor, it’s important to me to live my faith through good stewardship of our planet."

But as we watch the Amazon burn, see glaciers disappear, and face more and more extreme weather here in North Carolina, I’m deeply worried-- and I just can’t sit by and do nothing.

If the health of our environment wasn’t enough reason to take the climate crisis seriously, a dire warning from a UN expert has raised the stakes.

This human rights expert warns that the world is at risk of facing “climate apartheid,” where the wealthy and powerful pay to escape the worst effects of the crisis-- and undermine basic human rights and even the rule of law for hundreds of millions of people.

We have to act, friends. And we’re running out of time.

I’ve spent years organizing and advocating for justice. That’s shown me that you can only get so far when your representatives have a vested interest in defending the status quo.

Our current leaders are failing to meet the climate crisis with the urgency it demands. We need a new generation of leaders ready to fight for bold solutions like a Green New Deal. That’s why I’m running for Congress.

As Anthony Deutsch wrote yesterday, young Republicans are as worried about the Climate crisis as normal people are. "A growing majority of U.S. Republicans, especially younger voters, are worried that human behavior is damaging the planet, according to a survey of global attitudes to the environment conducted by an Amsterdam-based polling agency. The number of Republican voters aged 18-34 who are worried about the issue rose by 18 percentage points to 67%, said the poll, which also showed a 10 percentage point increase among all U.S. Republicans who said they tried 'to live eco-consciously... When looking deeper into the data it becomes clear that the highest rise in environmental concern (worldwide) is visible among younger Republicans,' said Glocalities pollster Martijn Lampert, who predicted that shifting views on the environment would influence the next U.S. election in 2020."

The DCCC and EMILY's List has each recruited a more conservative, establishment-type candidate to stop Jason. The DCCC found themselves a typical order-taker, a former Marine Corp officer who served the country in Iraq and Afghanistan. As we have seen this year, all of the former military recruits the DCCC sold us on in 2018 have turned out to be shills for the Democratic leadership-- NO INDEPENDENT THINKING among the whole lot of them. Frankly, I was shocked by it. And they're all a bunch of tepid conservatives afraid of bold ideas and afraid to lose their new prestigious jobs in Congress. It literally stunned me. Of the 94 Democrats who have signed on as co-sponsors to AOC's Green New Deal resolution so far-- not a single one was one of the military heroes the DCCC was pushing last cycle. That doesn't mean the DCCC recruit for NC-02 won't be the exception. But... a big clue is on his campaign website and what he says about policy positions: nothing, which is exactly what the DCCC tells it's sappy candidates to do. Nice photos of him and his attractive family though, and lots of meaningless cliches that say NOTHING about how someone is going to behave in Congress.

As for EMILY's List, they found a school board member with an even skimpier website than the one the military guy has! Look, please, if Democratic candidates are hiding their positions during the primary campaign, do you think we can expect bold, courageous action from them if they ever get into Congress? If so, it would be a first.

As for George Holding, he's begun acknowledging Climate Change... but he isn't fooling anyone about where his sympathies are regarding how to deal with it. There are few members of the House who are as corporately-motivated as George Holding. His positions are reflected in his League of Conservative Voters scorecard. They summed him up perfectly: "Rep. George Holding put polluters' agendas ahead of the health of North Carolinians, environmental protections and action on climate change."

We pretty much know exactly where Trump stands on the Climate Crisis and on all the issues, what his dark, toxic vision for America is and where he would bring the country if he is-- God help us-- reelected in 2020. Still, he's not going to speak the words on TV. Don't expect any 2020 Trump presidential debates. Impossible, you say? How many norms has Trump steamrolled right over and smashed to bits-- and with virtually no consequences whatsoever?

Three Stooges vs The Clown by Nancy Ohanian

Trump isn't able to form a coherent sentence, let alone debate any opponent. By labelling his Republican primary challengers as the Three Stooges, he has set the tone for refusing to debate former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld (R), former Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh (R) and former Governor and Congressman Mark Sanford (SC). The only Democrat he is likely to debate would be the one pathetic specimen he could probably beat, doddering, deteriorating and already senile Joe Biden. Nothing would get Trump up on a debate stage with Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders-- or even well-practiced phonies like Kamala Harris or Mayo Pete.

Meet Teresa Tomlinson: One Cannot Lead If One Is Afraid... Including On Impeaching Trump

Civiqs just released some fascinating state by state polling data on how registered voters view the way Trump has been performing in office. Nationally, 54% say they disapprove and 43% say they approve (July 23). Predictably, Trump's strongest approval comes in very red states-- North Dakota (67%), Wyoming (66%), West Virginia (64%), Oklahoma (63%), Arkansas (62%), and Idaho (61%) and the states where his disapproval is highest are in very blue states-- Massachusetts (70%), Vermont (70%), Hawaii (69%), California (68%), Maryland (68%), Rhode Island (68%), Washington (64%), New York (63%), Oregon (62%), Illinois (61%), Connecticut (61%). None of the 2016 swing states that gave Trump the electoral college win are looking good for him. His job performance is viewed negatively in all of them:

• Michigan- 53%
• Pennsylvania- 52%
• Wisconsin- 52%

But there's even worse news for the GOP in Georgia, where Trump beat Hillary by 5 points. Now Trump is underwater 49-48%. And that's bad news up and down the ticket for all his spineless enablers... like Senate freshman David Purdue, whose Trump adhesion score is an unbalanced 94.9%, among the 6 worst in the Senate.

In 2014 Perdue beat "me too" Republican-lite centrist Michelle Nunn 1,358,088 (53%) to 1,160,811 (45%). She had nothing to offer Georgians other then identity politics-- woman + famous name = zzzzzzz. This cycle, there's another candidate like Nunn, except without the famous name, Sarah Riggs Amico, who recently switched parties from GOP to Democrat. A reactionary, anti-union corporate CEO, Riggs Amico was still intensely anti-Choice-- and sketchy on racial equality-- until very recently... and in 2012 was still contributing to Mitt Romney against Obama. She has even less to offer base voters than Nunn did and can't win against Perdue.

Fortunately, Georgians will have a much better choice in their primary: former Columbus mayor Teresa Tomlinson who enacted a host of progressive policies which successfully increased the quality of life for Columbus residents while saving citizens tens of millions of dollars. When we spoke a couple of weeks ago she told me how she reformed the city budget-- including the employee healthcare and pension plans-- while decreasing unemployment; instituted the Rapid Resolution Program to expeditiously resolve non-violent felony charges and reduce holding times for lower-grade crimes; turned around struggling neighborhoods, lowering crime by more than 40%; reduced homelessness; created 66 miles of an interconnected alternative transportation system, made the public transit system more energy efficient, removed an environmental threat from the banks of the Chattahoochee River-- and all this while providing services at the lowest per capita rate of any major cities in Georgia. As she was recently preparing to leave office, Columbus was named one of the 25 Best Run Cities in America. I bet Mayo Pete wishes he had that kind of record.

One of the things I talked about with Teresa is why it's taking so long for Georgia to throw off the yoke of right-wing Republican politics. and one of the things she brought up was fear. Since we're always on the alert for courageous candidates, I asked her to expound on the idea for a guest post. She just sent me this short piece I recommend highly. In fact, if you like it enough, consider contributing to her campaign here.


Crippling Political Fear
by Teresa Tomlinson

It’s fear that cripples the Democratic Party. Fear of our policies, fear of who we are, and fear of the Republicans. Yes, fear is what has politically cost us in the last many election cycles.

One cannot lead if one is afraid. The thing about leadership is that people want their leaders to be brave. They care less about what you think on the issues than whether you have the moxie to fight for them and the strength of conviction to tell them what you really think.

I first ran for Mayor of Columbus in 2010-- the Year of the Tea Party. Though the position was non-partisan, it was no secret that I was a Democrat. The more radical, conservative forces of our region thought that needed to be “exposed.” So, the Tea Party, Constitution Party, and Conservative Party sponsored a mayoral debate with that objective in mind. To this day, that debate was one of the most exhilarating experiences I’ve had in politics. I felt like it was the final, marathon rally of Wimbledon. I dismantled Tea Party talking points, explained how their proposals were actually inconsistent with their mantra of so-called small government and pointed out how progressive principles were the better governing, more cost-efficient policies. After the debate, I inadvertently ran up on two older gentlemen who didn’t know I was right behind them. One said, “Well, I don’t like her, but I’ll give her this-- she has balls.” Yep, regardless of the errant anatomy reference, indeed, I had shown up, demonstrated political spine and earned his begrudging respect.

The moral of this story is not that I won his vote. I am certain I did not, but he didn’t work against me. The moral of the story is: Tell people who you are and what you believe. They may not agree with you, but they will respect your courage, and that will inoculate you against the single most effective propaganda that Republicans have against Democrats-- that we are cowards.

That’s what the Right can’t stand about The Squad. Those women are fearless about their beliefs. They refuse to be bullied, and that is dangerous to the Republican playbook of shaming scared Democrats into milk toast, mealy-mouthed, baby-splitting positions that are equivocal and stand for nothing. American voters revile those who won’t tell the people what they think. Even if you don’t support the policies-- or certainly some of the statements-- of The Squad, you can’t deny that you appreciate that they unabashedly tell the world what they think.

A classic example of this crippling Democratic political plague of fear is 2014 Democratic Senate candidate Alison Grimes, who refused to say whether she voted for the leader of her party, the two-term first black president, Barack Obama. And, the legion of Democratic candidates that year who refused to say they supported the Affordable Care Act (ACA), because the polling showed it was unpopular. Did we think any voter believed that a Democrat running for federal office didn’t fundamentally support the notion of providing healthcare coverage for millions of previously uninsured constituents? Our citizens could have used a little leadership from Democratic candidates during that cycle. Our president would have benefitted from the leadership of those Democratic candidates because fear begets disrespect and that disrespect spilled throughout the party and weakened Obama as its leader. Maybe if we had all spoken out and pushed back against the Republican political propaganda machine, we would not have allowed the bell-curve to slide so far right.

The nation has had its share of politically lukewarm Democratic candidates-- structured by the national party for perceived winnability not leadership. Even if they had a tagline of-- “Fighting for you”-- no one believed it.  How could they if they didn’t fight for the ACA or weren’t willing to admit America has a gun violence problem?

Imagine if Lucy McBath had taken some poll tested pro-gun proliferation position during her historic run to win Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. No one would have believed her. She had lost her precious son to gun violence perpetrated by an irresponsible gun owner with ready access to a deadly weapon-- no mother thinks that’s ok. So, she viscerally and authentically responded with the unmitigated truth and the courage of a woman who has nothing to lose in spreading it. As a result, the voters in an R+8 Republican district believed in her strength, in her earnestness and said-- I want you to lead my community.

When Democratic leaders believe that beginning impeachment proceedings is about polls or election results, they, too, are giving in to fear: they are afraid that following the Constitutional checks and balances and leading will cost them their job, so they mitigate and delay. Unfortunately, their job is to lead by upholding the Constitution, not to get re-elected.

Impeachment is not about undoing the last election or impacting the next. It certainly is not about the polls as the Founding Framers made perfectly clear in Federalist Paper, No. 66. It is about stopping a president who would abuse and misuse the power of the presidency so that not another day passes-- not another circumstance presents itself-- where a president, unfit for duty because of the commission of High Crimes or Misdemeanors (defined as misdeeds) can inflict his/her poor judgment on the office, the country, or the people. Oh, if only impeachment proceedings had been instituted sooner, the damage that might have been averted.

Instead, Democrats are afraid of what the Republicans will say about it-- what the bullies will do to us on the way home. So, we cut through the alley to avoid the fight and controversy. We detour our duty of leadership and good government. Commencing impeachment proceedings is about employing the constitutional duty that our elected leaders were sworn to do-- not about mitigating to the finish line and hoping no one notices that we wouldn’t use the tools entrusted to us to keep the American system on the rails. All Democrats, and many Independents and Republicans, understand that Donald Trump has committed High Crimes or Misdemeanors, so if this conduct doesn’t warrant the commencement of impeachment proceedings, then what would? We must seriously consider the example of tolerance for harmful conduct at the highest levels of our government we are creating.

The key to winning is that you don’t aim to win, you aim to lead. If you lead, the winning takes care of itself-- or at least you move the needle so profoundly you set up the next winner, as did Stacey Abrams in Georgia with her heroic non-loss in Georgia. She was who she was and voters responded to that.

That’s not fear, that’s winning.