The Freshmen: What About Jefferson Van Drew? Part II

I keep getting complaints that our early June episode of The Freshmen on New Jersey Blue Dog Jefferson Van Drew, didn't do him justice and was far from complete. He is, after all, the worst Democrat in Congress and deserves a more thorough look. I'm up for it.

Back in June, we noted that he was among the half dozen Blue Dogs-- the others being Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Anthony Brindisi (NY), Joe Cunningham (SC), Kendra Horn (OK) and Ben McAdams (UT)-- voting most frequently against anything that smacks of progressivism and that his ProgressivePunch crucial vote score was a shockingly dreadful 37.5%. A lot has changed in the last month. Van Drew is now tied with just two Blue Dogs-- Brindisi and Cunningham-- as the worst Democrats in Congress. His 37,5% crucial vote score has continued to deteriorate and is now 20.0%, worse than ex-Republican/Independent Justin Amash's 32.72% and worse than the scores of Republicans Brian Fitzpatrick (29.35%), Thomas Massie (28.75) and John Katko (21.36).

Unexpectedly, he's turned into a virtual Pelosi puppet. Last week, she wanted a strong vote against impeachment and Van Drew-- who has been whining that all investigations into Trump should stop-- was there for her. For someone who campaigned as an anti-Pelosi Democrat, he rarely votes against her wishes. And when he does-- it always seems to be to please Trump and the GOP House leadership, as he did this week when he voted against holding William Barr and Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress. That resolution passed 230 to 198 with just 4 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with the Republicans against it: Anthony Brindisi (NY), Jared Golden (ME), Conor Lamb (PA), and Jefferson Van Drew (NJ).

Also last week, when nearly every Democrat in the House was rushing to defend Ilhan Omar, AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley from Trump's ugly racist comments, Van Drew alone decided ti use NRCC talking points instructing members how to use "both sides" terminology. 7 days ago Van Drew wrote that "Elected officials on both sides need to stop with the name calling and hateful statements. Instead of focusing on real issues, we have heard all manner of appalling remarks from those who would rather distract from them. It is time to grow up. This behavior is shameful and disgusting." A staffer told him that "both sides" evoctes Trump's statement about the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville and, eventually Van Drew allowed those words to be removed from his Facebook page.

One of the recurring complaints I got about past coverage of Van Drew is that I didn't include David Hogg's criticism and that of other anti-NRA activists. Last year, the Philadelphia Inquirer warned voters in south Jersey towns where the paper is a big news source that Van Drew is a long-time NRA shill.

South Jersey Democratic congressional candidate Jeff Van Drew felt the wrath of a local teen when Emily McGrath of Egg Harbor Township confronted him with evidence that he had accepted donations from the NRA at a forum in February, a week after the mass shooting at a school in Parkland, Fla.

Over the weekend, Van Drew, a state senator from Cape May County, felt the glare from another teen, this one with a national following: David Hogg, the student activist who survived the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

"Remember both Democrats and Republicans take #NRABloodMoney," Hogg tweeted to his 778,000 followers. "Just look up New Jersey state senator @JeffVanDrew, he's a Democrat with an A rating from the NRA."

...Van Drew has said publicly that he would support expanded background checks and regulations of silencers. But he has said in interviews that he generally opposes the additional gun law regulations now being considered in New Jersey. Those bills will not reach the state Senate, where Van Drew would cast his votes, until two days after the primary.

His campaign acknowledged that he received $1,000 from the NRA in 2008, plus $2,700 in 2007 and 2008 from a lesser-known gun lobby, the Newtown Connecticut-based National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc. But Van Drew has said he has not taken any NRA donations since then, and would refuse any donations.

Kate Aronoff, reporting earlier for The Intercept went a little deeper into the contretemps between McGrath and Van Drew. She was a 17 year old senior at Egg Harbor Township High School in his district who didn't beat around the bush: "'Senator, you lied,' McGrath said after a debate for Democratic candidates in Northfield, New Jersey, citing evidence that Jeff Van Drew had accepted donations from the NRA in previous election cycles. The video was posted to Twitter by Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Amy S. Rosenberg. Earlier in the evening, McGrath noted on camera, Van Drew had said he had 'never' accepted funds from the NRA when he spoke to her AP government class the day before. Another local woman, Donna Challender, told Van Drew that, 'I don’t have any faith that you will ever vote for universal checks … you’re 100 percent NRA.'"

In 2017 Van Drew was given a 100% rating from the NRA, very rare for a Democrat. He had consistently voted against gun control measures as a member of the state Assembly, including two pushed for by the state’s Democrats in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook. Worse yet-- in 2010 he introduced a bill to loosen restrictions on handgun permits. There was so much controversy generated by the bill that Van Drew eventually withdrew it and it was never voted on.

Aronof noted at the time that "Van Drew’s voting record is conservative on fronts besides gun control, as well. He was one of two Democrats in the state senate to vote against gay marriage in 2012. Van Drew has also supported restrictions on abortion, and vocally opposed the idea of making New Jersey a sanctuary city-- a proposal embraced by newly elected Democratic governor Phil Murphy."

Years earlier, the chairman of the Ocean City Democratic Club, Sam Lavner resigned rather than help Van Drew trick Democratic voters into turning out for him, citing Van Drew’s vote in favor of pension and benefits reform as the culmination of his disgust over the senator’s voting record, which includes support for some of Gov. Chris Christie’s key initiatives. Van Drew told associates he didn't care because Lavner was "just a [hateful explitive for gay person] pissed off that I voted against gay marriage..." Publicly he said "He is very much focused-- and his main concern with me-- was over transgender and gay and lesbian concerns with my position on that issue... People are eager to have people who stand up for what is right."

A willing yes vote on Christie’s budget, and health and pension reform, a proponent of getting New Jersey out of the regional greenhouse gas initiative and backer of the governor’s red tape reform committee, Van Drew said he mostly agrees with Christie’s pro business approach.

 “He’s on target-- we cannot tax, toll and regulate this state to death,” the senator said. We have to incentivize business and create jobs.”  

Just a rumor-- you heard it here first

I asked Michael McAdams, an NRCC spokesperson and he told me that "Van Drew is a puppet of Nancy Pelosi and has failed to stand up to the radical policies of the socialist Democrats," which is an interesting perspective, kind of the opposite of our critique of Van Drew. The GOP attack on socialism is an attack on Social Security and Medicare and everything conservatives have fought for the last century-- like in the picture up top, which puts Van Drew in the same category as the Republicans-- the conservative category, just they were red coats and he wears a blue jumper. But if it were the 1770s, they'd all have joined with the British to kill Patriots, except Michael, a swell guy.

Since the DCCC got him into Congress, he-- along with Cunningham and Brindisi, both, unlike Van Drew, from heavily red districts-- has voted against progressive roll calls 80% of the time. So far this cycle there is no announced primary opponent, though a motley crew of clueless Republicans calling him a socialist are running. Let's look at three progressive policies that Van Drew opposes and will fight tooth and nail to stop. These charts were published by the New York Times yesterday. You'll have to click on each chart to read them-- a wealth tax on the super-rich, Medicare-for-All and free public colleges:

The Freshmen: what About Jeff Van Drew?

Seinfeld: "You know the difference between a dentist and a sadist, don't you? Newer magazines."

The DCCC had been trying to recruit the most right-wing Democrat in the New Jersey state legislature, Jefferson Van Drew-- and he was not named for Thomas-- for years. But it was not until Frank LoBiondo (R), sick of Trump's behavior, announced he was retiring, that Van Drew allowed himself to be recruited. At the time, we warned DWT readers that he was likely to be the worst Democrap in Congress. He immediately joined the Blue Dogs, of course. And today he is among the half dozen Blue Dogs-- the others being Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Anthony Brindisi (NY), Joe Cunningham (SC), Kendra Horn (OK) and Ben McAdams (UT)-- voting most frequently against anything that smacks of progressivism. Van Drew's crucial vote score from ProgressivePunch is a shockingly dreadful 37.5%. [In way of comparison, conservative Republican Justin Amash (MI) has a 43.75 score this session.] House Democrats thought they'd never live to see a more reactionary colleague than Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)-- until the DCCC dug up dreck like Jefferson Van Drew and his class in 2018.

Last week, NewJersey.com (the Newark Star-Ledger) published a full-blown editorial on Van Drew's inadequacy as a member of Congress, Why does this NJ Democrat want to end Trump inquiries? Generally speaking, the Star-Ledger has been pretty pro-Van Drew. One could only wish they are starting to wake up. New Jersey has two of the worst Democrats in Congress (not even counting Norcross' little brother, Donald)-- Van Drew and Gottheimer. New Jersey Democrats should wake up and take back control of their party from the corrupt bosses who still control it.

Jeff Van Drew believes that the congressional investigations into the snowballing farce known as the Trump Administration must cease.

It doesn’t matter what House committees look into. It could be Russian subterfuge, election security, obstruction of justice, Donald Trump’s tax returns, his fake charity, the questionable financing of his real estate projects, or the president’s role in the campaign finance violation that landed his lawyer in jail, a case in which he was named an unindicted co-conspirator.

Van Drew’s thesis: “We must finalize these investigations and bring all of this to a conclusion in a timely manner. The people are exhausted with the bad gift that keeps on giving: the Mueller Report. They are tired of the investigations. They are tired of the accusations. They are tired of the reports,” the congressman from South Jersey (D-2nd Dist.) says.

He added that congressional efforts are “wasted on these investigations,” and that “their continuation will only perpetuate civil unrest.”

That’s a mouthful, and while Van Drew walked back some of it in a 20-minute phone conversation Tuesday, he is dismissing a key point: Upholding the rule of law and exercising oversight duty should always top the list of congressional priorities.

And given that only 3 of the 20 committees are investigating information related to the Mueller Report, the House is multi-tasking effectively. It isn’t the fault of the Democratic-controlled chamber that every bill it advances-- whether it’s related to health care costs, environmental protection, gun safety, or election security-- is rejected by the GOP-led Senate.

Van Drew concedes that the lower chamber is “getting some nice bills done,” but he believes the Senate and Trump himself would be more cooperative if the House dropped its probes, which, he implies, the average voter lacks the bandwidth to process anyway.

Van Drew also says he has read the Mueller report “from first page to last page” but somehow concluded that the special counsel “did not adequately make the case” that the president is guilty of any wrongdoing.

What he forgets is that Mueller does not do nuance. The special counsel emphasized that if his office “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” He also said that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

In other words, there’s a good chance that the president committed a crime.

And that it’s up to Congress to determine that.

Van Drew also shrugs when reminded that 1,000 federal prosecutors say that the 10 examples of obstruction of justice outlined by the Mueller Report warrant formal charges: “I don’t want to make a comment on it, I’m not a lawyer,” he said.

It’s prudent that Van Drew is making up his own mind about whether to proceed with impeachment hearings. Every member must make his or her own call on that matter, which stopped being partisan ever since Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) jumped into the debate with both feet.

And it’s understandable that Democrats from toss-up districts avoid talks of impeachment, and comments about investigations if they don’t serve on the House committees conducting them.

But to suggest that the investigations must cease because their voters cannot take the stress is an abdication of duty. If Van Drew hears a different narrative when he’s “out in the street,” his obligation is to do what Amash did: explain why we cannot allow a sitting president to ignore subpoenas and stonewall Congress just because he thinks he is above the law.

That is part of his job. Van Drew sounds as if he’s afraid to do it.

So far no one has announced a primary challenge to Van Drew. He had been expected to sweep to victory in 2018 but a basically unknown Republican, Seth Grossman, held him down to a paltry 52.9% win. Van Drew is not exactly an inspiration to the South Jersey Democratic base. He lost Salem, Ocean, Camden and Burlington counties. The Democratic Party would probably do a lot better by backing an actual Democrat for the 2020 race. I know, I know-- the chances of that happening are... remote.

The Freshmen: What About Cindy Axne?

Waste of a seat-- but better than a Republican

This is the 4th in our series about the 2018 freshmen. First was Katie Hill (D-CA), followed by Sharice Davids (D-KS) and Katie Porter (D-CA). Cindy is a bit of a backbencher who doesn't stand out in any way at all and I probably would have saved her for a few months but, Chuck Schumer seems to have been trying to recruit her to run for the Senate seat in Iowa next year. Schumer has a knack for finding the absolute worst and most horrific candidates to run; think Kirsten Sinema. Axne hasn't shown herself to be as bad as Sinema... although... it did take a few years for Sinema to turn into the wretch she is today.

Axne won the 2018 primary in Iowa's 3rd CD to beat two progressive candidates. She then edged Republican incumbent David Young 175,642 (49.3%) to 167,933 (47.1%) in a swing district that runs from Des Moines to Council Bluffs and the Omaha suburbs on the east bank of the Mississippi River. Obama beat McCain 52.4% to 46.3% and beat Romney 51.4% to 47.2% but then along came Hillary (who gave up on Iowa fast)-- giving Trump a 48.5% to 45.0% win. The PVI is R+1 and it will be a key battleground between Joni Ernst and whichever Democrat runs against her.

Why would Schumer pick a nonentity like Axne? That's exactly why he would pick her. She immediately joined the Wall Street-owned New Dems and developed a solid "F" voting score. All three House Dems from Iowa are conservative but her ProgressivePunch score (53.85%) is worse than Dave Loebsack's 68.34% or Abby Finkenauer's 69.23%. You can always count of Schumer to start at the bottom.

I bet I don't have to tell you where she stands on any of the crucial bills pending before Congress today. But I will (not for you; for the slower people):

• H.R. 1384- Medicare For All Act-- refused to co-sponsor it
• H.R. 582- Raise The Wage Act ($15 minimum wage)-- refused to co-sponsor it
• H. Res. 109- Green New Deal-- refused to co-sponsor it
• H.R. 860- Social Security 2100 Act-- refused to co-sponsor it
• H.R. 1046- Medicare Negotiation And Competition Licensing Act (to lower drug prices-- refused to co-sponsor it

Do you think Iowa Democrats-- despite Schumer-- want a candidate to run against Joni Ernst who will not fight for Medicare-For-All, not fight for a Green New Deal discussion (which is really what this resolution is all about), not fight for a living wage, not fight to save Social Security and not even fight for fair drug prices? People in Des Moines are happy about what it costs to fill their prescriptions? I don't think so. Cindy Axne, politically speaking, is exactly one thing and one thing only: better than a Republican. That's it.

I'm glad Axne decided to not run for the U.S. Senate. But I'd be a lot gladder if there was a progressive Democrat challenging her to a primary. There isn't... at least not yet.

#3 In Our Series About The Freshmen: What About Katie Porter?

Last cycle, the NRCC was so certain that they would hold CA-45 in Orange County that they didn't even bother putting incumbent Mimi Walters into their Patriot Program for vulnerable House members. That may have been a mistake. The district, which went into the race with a PVI of R+3, had given Romney a 55-43% win over Obama but gave Hillary 49% to Trump's 44%. With a $92,378 median income, it's the 13th richest congressional district in the country. Ethnically, it's 53.2% White, 22.4% Asian. 18.7% Latino and 1.7% Black. It seemed safer than any of the other Orange County districts. The GOP hadn't really thought that every one of them would get caught up in the anti-red/anti-Trump 2018 wave. But they did. Walters lost to first-time candidate Katie Porter:

Porter's campaign was largely based on her promise to "to hold Donald Trump and the powerful special interests in Washington accountable on behalf of Orange County families" and her pledge to support Medicare-For-All. She has signed on as an original co-sponsor of Pramila Jayapal's new-and-improved Medicare-For-All Act and her work in the House Financial Services Committee holding the Wall Street special interests' feet to the fire has become her trademark already.

Katie was backed by Blue America and we were a little nonplused when her voting record quickly started diverging from progressives. Even now, her ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is nothing to write home about-- a "D," tied with 5 New Dems, like Susie Lee, Chrissy Houlahan and Dean Phillips. An endorsement committee of a board I'm on asked me what was wrong and if we should consider not re-endorsing her. My advise based on two things-- 1- that she is doing incredible work in her committee and 2- that there are still too few votes to make a decision like that, even if we'd rather see her voting with AOC and Mike Levin (in the district next door) than like conservatives like Lee, Houlahan and Phillips. They have nothing going for them-- just the poor voting record-- while she is fulfilling her campaign promise to hold special interests accountable... and in a way few freshman members can match.

Blue America is still watching and waiting to see how her first year looks before we re-endorse. But the other board... I voted yes, to endorse again. I suspect Blue America will as well. She may need the help too. There are already 4 Republicans in the primary, Don Sedgwick, a Laguna Hills City Councilman, who has raised big money ($140,977), Ray Gennawey, Mission Viego Mayor Greg Raths and Yorba Linda City Councilwoman Peggy Huang. At one point, Mimi Walters said she would like a rematch and filed paper work with the FEC but she's been quiet and hasn't raised any money so far. Voter registration in CA-45 favors Republicans by about 5 points over Democrats.



She has roughed up congressional witnesses in her committee, like billionaire Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorganChase and Well Fargo CEO Tim Sloan, as well as the top dogs at Equifax and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She's already considered the best financial affairs interrogator in Congress. But aside from making a name for herself for nailing banksters' and Trump officials' hides to the wall-- watch the 3 videos on this page-- Porter has raised an impressive $416,122.85 for her reelection campaign.

When compulsive liar and Trumpist press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders asserted last week that congressional Democrats are not "smart enough" to review Trump’s tax returns, Porter went on CNN to respond and offered to "take that bet anytime... I’m trained in tax law. I’m a legal professor. I’m ready to take a look." Huckabee hasn't brought the taxes over for her to look at-- nor, apparently chastened-- has she responded in any other way.

The Freshmen: What About Sharice Davids?

And, so far... a waste of a House seat. Better than Kevin Yoder, though

Kansas' 3rd district (Wyandotte and Johnson counties and some of more rural Miami County) flipped red to blue in 2018. Basically, the district is Kansas City and it's suburbs, a swing district that Obama lost narrowly twice but that Hillary won, also narrowly (one point), in 2016. The district is 72.8% white, 11.6% Latino, 8.6% African-American and 4.2% Asian. The area is prosperous-- and it has the 83rd highest medium income of the 435 congressional districts. The PVI is R+4. Blue Dog Democrat Dennis Moore had served as congressman from 1999 until 2011. Moore, suffering with Alzheimer's disease, retired in 2010 and the Democrats ran his wife. She lost to a Democrat-turned-Republican, Kevin Yoder in the 2010 Republican wave election. The DCCC then insisted on trying to replicate Moore by running Blue Dogs and losing each time.

Democrats sensed Yoder was weak in 2018 and there was a fierce 6-person winner-take-all primary. Davids ran as a moderate identity politics candidate and her closest rival was Brent Welder, a progressive Berniecrat. She eked out a narrow 23,379 (27.3%) to 21,190 (33.8%) win. Welder and the rest of the Democrats rallied around Davids for the general and she kicked Yoder's ass:

Sharice Davids is a native American, a lesbian, a mixed martial arts fighter and an attorney. When she got to Washington she joined the right-of-center, Wall Street owned-and-operated New Dems and quickly ran up a solid "F" voting record, tied with 5 other Democrats as the 212th "most progressive" in the House, according to ProgressivePunch. Not a promising start.

Over the weekend, the Kansas City Star ran a piece on her first 100 days by Bryan Lowry about how the establishment loves her for being a nice quiet backbencher who doesn't make any waves the way AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib do. "[W]hile her personal biography is barrier-breaking," wrote Lowry, "Davids’ approach to her first 100 days in office has been exceedingly traditional, marked by deference to leadership and studious attention to the details of legislating. As other members of her freshman class, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) have made big headlines with proposals like the Green New Deal, Davids has quietly been laying the groundwork for a longer game." And, predictably, all the worst assholes in Congress just love her.

“I would put her toward the top of the freshman class in terms of doing things the right way,” said Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL), the chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

“She’s not a showoff,” Bustos said. “She’s an athlete and if you’ve known any high-level athletes, they’re disciplined, they’re methodical… nailing all the fundamentals.”

“You have to build relationships and learn what are the things that are of interest to other members of Congress, what are the things that folks have been taking a lead on for a really long time,” Davids said. “And what are things [where] there’s space for me to contribute to the conversation that’s been going on or to ask questions to spark a new conversation.”

This approach has helped her build clout with party leaders, who see her as rising star. Davids will be one of two freshman Democrats speaking at the Center for American Progress’ ideas conference in Washington next month, a sign of her growing status.

“I like people who are team players. Sharice is a team player. I like people who are first going to listen before they speak up at the microphone,” Bustos said.

Bustos has been engaged in a public dispute with Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives, about the DCCC’s efforts to protect incumbent Democrats against primary challenges.

[Emanuel] Cleaver noted that Ocasio-Cortez, who he referred to has “the congresswoman from New York,” came to Kansas last year to campaign on behalf of Davids’ primary opponent Brent Welder. Cleaver complained that Davids, a centrist from the Midwest, hasn’t gotten as much attention as some of her more progressive, coastal peers.

“Congresswoman Davids may be the most brilliant and thoughtful member of the freshman class who nobody has noticed. And a lot of that is if you’re from the East Coast or the West Coast… the media just automatically fawns over you,” Cleaver said.

“If you’re in flyover territory people tend to overlook, but I can guarantee you-- because I hear it at home-- the people at home aren’t overlooking her.”

...Cleaver said Davids takes the same meticulous approach when deciding how to vote on legislation, regardless of the bill’s importance.

“Sharice Davids may be the only person that reads every sentence of every bill, of every amendment… I mean, everything,” said Cleaver, who joked that he sometimes tells her that she doesn’t have to do that because Democrats are in the majority.

After her careful parsing of bills, Davids has still aligned closely with Democratic leadership in her votes, a fact that has been noticed by her supporters and critics alike.

“She for the first 100 days here has been incredibly loyal to Nancy Pelosi and her leadership, voting in lockstep. She’s not creating headaches. She’s shown no independence,” said Bob Salera, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is targeting Davids’ district in 2020.

Davids also faces pressure from a vocal minority on the left that want to see her back progressive policy goals, such as the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.


During the campaign, Davids was open to supporting a single-payer health care system as a long-term objective, but emphasized more incremental legislation as realistic policy. At her recent town hall in Olathe, a few attendees booed when Davids said she wasn’t ready to commit to supporting Medicare for All, because she had not finished vetting it. This week, she told The Star that she will not support the Medicare for All bill in its current form because it would phase out employer-based insurance.

“That’s a pretty big sticking issue. I’ve talked to a lot of people who are not only satisfied with their employer plan, but are actually very pleased with it,” Davids said.




“And those folks aren’t saying I’m opposed to us figuring out a way to get universal access to affordable, quality health care for folks, but they are saying I don’t want to lose the insurance I have now. So that’s a sticking point on there.”


Matt Erickson, a 32-year-old Prairie Village resident, was among those who booed Davids’ answer in Olathe. Learning that Davids has officially come out against Medicare for all was even more disappointing, he said.

“Arguments like ‘people are tied to employee sponsored health insurance,’ I don’t find convincing,” said Erickson, who volunteered for Welder during the 2018 primary.

“People like their employer provided insurance because the alternative is they don’t have insurance at all,” he said. “In Medicare for all, the alternative is never having to change insurance plans again, no premiums, no deductibles, and no financial barriers to healthcare. You don’t lose your insurance if you leave your job or you get laid off.”

But Davids’ centrist approach may serve well in her suburban district, where Republicans outnumber Democrats. She’s instead focused on more incremental steps, such as advocating for her home state to expand Medicaid.

Davids is so weak and worthless-- and so determined to appeal to Republicans and be seen as willing to spit in the eye of progressives-- that she's one of only 30 House Democrats who hasn't co-sponsored Bobby Scott's livable minimum wage bill, H.R. 582, to which 205 Democrats have signed on. So far there is no primary challenger, nor is there a Republican challenger-- just an identity politics incumbent who is already proving herself to be about as bad as any Democrat can be... before switching parties. Perfect for Cheri Bustos.