Identity Politics Strike Again

This morning, the Wall Street Journal reported that Amazon multi-billionaire Jeff Bezos made a $10 million contribution to the With Honor Fund, a super PAC that aims to elect military veterans to Congress. More identity group politics? Founder Rye Barcott claims they don't screen "for ideology" but looks for a "common bond of service and commitment to the country." They don't back all veterans, though, and most of the candidates they back are conservatives. Of the 7 progressive veterans running for Congress this cycle that Blue America endorsed-- Doug Applegate, DuWayne Gregory, James Thompson, Jared Golden Randy Bryce Tom Wakely and Tom Prigg, the only one the With Honor Fund backed is Jared Golden (who they spent $622,586 on). Their other IEs were for very right-wing Republicans and conservative-leaning Democrats from the Republican-wing of the Democratic Party. Example: they spent $603,940 on Damon Martinez in Albuquerque, who was beaten by in the primary by Deb Haaland, a progressive. Same in NY-19, where they spent $238,687 on conservative Pat Ryan-- and significant money against his opponents, one of whom, Anthony Delgado, won). You can view all their candidates and expenditures here and here.

If they don't screen for ideology and only base their expenditures on military service but don't back all military veterans... well, I'm sure they know what they're trying to accomplish, even if that isn't in the real world.

Today there was joyous celebrating online because Ayanna Pressley won her congressional race in Boston (MA-07) last night. Mike Capuano, a sterling progressive, was at a disadvantage being a long-time incumbent as well as white and male. The fact that he's probably further left than she is-- and certainly further left in the largely unexamined area of foreign policy-- where he's for peace and she's... an AIPAC supporter, doesn't matter to the folks looking for another scalp and without the discernment to fully understand the difference between a corrupt conservative like Joe Crowley, who earned disdain and defeat, and Mike Capuano, who was steamrolled by identity politics.

In their intercept piece, Lee Fang and Said Jilani hit all the right questions. "The challenge to Capuano raises a slew of political questions in the Trump era: Under what circumstances does a member of Congress deserve re-election? In a race between two similarly positioned politicians, how important is identity? How important is a progressive track record?"

There are some similarities between Ocasio-Cortez’s and Pressley’s bids: Pressley is black, meaning that, like Ocasio-Cortez, she is a women of color running to unseat a white man in a majority non-white district. But, unlike Ocasio-Cortez and Eastman, both of whom ran with sparse political resources — few campaign dollars and virtually no major establishment endorsements — Pressley is backed by major donors and powerful figures within the Democratic Party’s elite. According to Politico, Pressley, a former aide to then-Sen. John Kerry, was urged by the “donor class” to make her run. Federal Election Commission reports show she has raised over $1 million, more than double the amount raised by Ocasio-Cortez and more than triple the amount raised by Eastman before election day.

While Ocasio-Cortez and Eastman won by sharply criticizing the moderate voting records of their primary opponents, Pressley has demurred repeatedly when asked to point to major policy areas in which she disagrees with her opponent.

Pressley has garnered some support from establishment forces: Her campaign contributors include Boston-area megadonor Barbara Lee; Minyon Moore, a so-called Democratic National Committee superdelegate and principal of the corporate lobbying firm Dewey Square group; and Super PAC strategist Guy Cecil. She also appears to be gaining momentum among progressives. She has been endorsed by Ocasio-Cortez and Democracy for America. Meanwhile, progressive groups are seizing upon the Pressley campaign as an opportunity for change.

“Congressman Mike Capuano has been a fine, progressive member of Congress, but having an experienced progressive like Ayanna Pressley on the ballot is an unmissable opportunity for Massachusetts to both ensure a leading woman of color represents its only majority-minority district and add the voice of just one person of color to New England’s currently all-white congressional delegation,” said Jim Dean, chair for Democracy for America, in a statement. Jonathan Cohn, co-chair of Progressive Massachusetts, explained that his group also endorsed Pressley over Capuano because of the “need for more diverse representation in Congress and the need for more activist leadership from Democrats in Congress.”

Justice Democrats, the new advocacy PAC spearheading progressive primary challenges across the country, endorsed Pressley over Capuano. Alexandra Rojas, a spokesperson for the group, said the group “would like to see fresh leadership, especially from women and people of color, in one of the few majority-minority districts in the country represented by a white man.”

...Capuano, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, blazed an unusual path on Capitol Hill. He has championed “Medicare for All” for over a decade, helped establish the influential Office of Congressional Ethics, and, as Congress has increasingly abandoned its corporate oversight responsibilities, has made a name for himself dressing down the chief executives of big banks, airlines, and other industries for engaging in fraud and abuse.

For some activists on the left who have supported Capuano’s policy stances, the prospect of challenging the progressive stalwart is a misguided venture. Robert Naiman, policy director of the progressive think tank Just Foreign Policy, said he has cheered on the wave of progressive insurgent candidates, but was surprised to see Capuano — who is known for his progressive foreign policy stances — facing a challenge. Naiman, a watchdog on foreign intervention, rattled off a list of foreign policy stances Capuano has staked, agitating for peace even against his own party, from leading the opposition to the war in Yemen to maintaining a lonely battle against President Barack Obama’s war in Libya.

“Taking down Capuano? That would be terrible,” Naiman said. “He’s a progressive champion.”

In the few areas in which Pressley says she presents an alternative to Capuano, the contrast is nonetheless muddled. Pressley said she pledged to decline corporate PAC money, while Capuano has not. That may be true in the 2018 Democratic congressional primary, but Pressley fundraised from corporate, police, and lobbyist-run PACs while a member of the city council, ethics disclosures show, before taking the pledge this cycle. (Pressley’s campaign did not offer comment for this article.)

Records show that the Pressley Committee, the registered entity for Pressley’s municipal campaigns, received donations from several corporate lobbying PACs, including the Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough and Nixon Peabody. Individuals from the powerful Massachusetts corporate lobbying firm Dewey Square Group have donated 18 times to Pressley’s campaigns.

...Another area where Capuano’s long national record stands in contrast to Pressley’s local profile is on foreign policy-- particularly American wars abroad. Questionnaires sponsored by Massachusetts Peace Action, a grassroots pressure group focused on curbing the power of the Pentagon and ending military adventures overseas, provide one of the few windows into the candidates’ views in this area. But, in her responses, Pressley declined to take a position on whether she would “vote to terminate the U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan” or whether she would support legislation to prohibit “stationing military forces [in Syria], and providing assistance and training to insurgents.”

Explaining her non-answers, Pressley wrote that she would seek to exhaust other diplomatic and nonmilitary options, but wanted to avoid closing the door on the possibility of supporting future military solutions to ending the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan. Capuano, in contrast, answered “yes” to both questions in the survey. He also noted that he introduced legislation to require congressional authorization for the use of force in Syria; was one of only 11 lawmakers to file a lawsuit against Obama for using military force in Libya without congressional approval; and has voted on several occasions to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

While local Massachusetts media has largely ignored foreign policy in its coverage of the primary race, the issue looms large among those who have served with Capuano.

“I have long looked to my Progressive Caucus colleague Mike for his leadership and principled advocacy on U.S. foreign policy,” said Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “Given the Trump administration’s constant warmongering, progressives in Congress need Mike Capuano’s unwavering moral courage, now more than ever.”

This week, after careful consideration of the two candidates, Massachusetts Peace Action decided to endorse Capuano.

“Pressley has said little about foreign policy in her campaign, often resorts to generalities, and has not responded to our invitations to be briefed by foreign policy experts or to hold a forum with her opponent on foreign policy,” said Cole Harrison, the executive director of the activist group. “Capuano, the incumbent, consistently votes to pull troops out of Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya, and to cut the military budget. Pressley hasn’t earned the confidence of the peace forces, and we are announcing our endorsement of Capuano for re-election.”

The Massachusetts Peace Action questionnaire also asked about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, focusing on a growing movement to pressure Israel over its occupation of Palestinian lands through boycott, divestment, and sanctions. Known by its initials, BDS, the movement has drawn strong opposition from pro-Israel voices, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which has worked to outlaw any form of BDS activism.

Pressley declined to take a position on an AIPAC-backed piece of legislation that would impose criminal and civil penalties on some of those involved in BDS activism. The candidate explained that she intends to support “courageous individuals and organizations, among both Israelis and Palestinians, committed to bringing peaceful coexistence to the region.” Capuano took a stand against the anti-BDS bill, explaining that although he is not personally in support of using BDS tactics to pressure Israel, he opposes the anti-BDS bill on “First Amendment grounds” and believes “others should be free to advocate” for the movement.

Pressley is being advised by Alex Goldstein, a former aide to then-Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Goldstein has described himself as a “Jewish Zionist who works every day to fight BDS” and sits on the board of the Jewish Community Relations Council in Boston, which has unsuccessfully argued in favor of passing anti-BDS legislation in Massachusetts.

While finding distinctions between the two candidates’ positions can be difficult, the candidates have been intensely questioned by local media about the issue of housing. In one of their debates, Capuano declined the opportunity to criticize luxury real estate developments in Boston, while Pressley flatly answered that there are too many luxury developments and not enough affordable housing, proposing a “rent relief” tax break for residents spending high proportions of income on housing.

On occasion, however, Pressley has voted on the city council to approve luxury real estate developments, recently voting to support the $1.3 billion luxury Winthrop Tower development, she said, because the builders pledged to include minority businesses. Following the vote in April, Pressley received $1,250 in campaign contributions from the developers of the project, records show.

Celebrate Pressley's win for what it is-- not for what it isn't. I have no doubt that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is going to be a huge upgrade from Joe Crowley. We'll see if we can say the same thing about Ayanna Pressley and Mike Capuano next year.

I would have much rather seen Brianna Wu beat right-of-center, anti-Choice Democrat Stephen Lynch,a also in Boston (MA-08) but progressive activists largely ignored that race. And Lynch rolled right over her.

That said, I'm sure Ayanna Pressley will be a much better member of Congress than most-- even than most from Massachusetts. Or, at least, I have reason to hope so. On the other hand, is Barbara Lee safe in her seat? Mark Pocan? Jim McGovern? Raul Grijalva? Jerry Nadler? Alan Lowenthal? Do their records as fighting progressives count for anything?

Democratic Women Who Served In The Military And Now Want To Serve In Congress

Unless this is the first time you've landed at DWT, you probably know I hate identity group politics. Women belong in electoral office! OK, we need more women in Congress-- excellent ones, like the House's single best member, Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)-- but not crap ones-- like the House's single worst Democratic member, Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ). Congress needs more Hispanics, right? Absolutely-- great Hispanics like Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), but not right-wing shitheads like Henry Cuellar. (Blue Dog-TX) How about some more LGBTQ congressmembers? Yeah! But solid progressives like Mark Pocan (D-WI), not nightmares like Sinema and Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY). You name an identity group and I'll tell you an outstanding member of Congress from that group... and a POS from that group. Identity group politics is no way to pick candidates, but people use it all the time.

And the newest subgroup is... women from the military. The DCCC invented the category is strategy sessions before the cycle began. They thought recruiting a bunch of centrist female corporate lawyers who had once served in the military would be a good idea. They went out and looked for them and came back with some absolutely mediocre candidates to reinvent as heroines of the Republic, like Mikie Sherrill from New Jersey and Chrissy Houlahan from Pennsylvania.

But the idea took on a life of it's own, and women who had served in the military were encouraged by that idea and decided they could run too. Two campaign intro ads this cycle were from that identity group. First we had the electrifying ad from Amy McGrath of Kentucky (up top), an ad, made by a skilled ad-maker, that was better than the novice candidate. The DCCC may have been committed to centrist women who had serviced in the military but they already were committed to recruiting another candidate from KY-06 from their very favorite identity group: multimillionaires and they through their weight behind very rich Lexington mayor (who is also an extremely conservative Blue Dog-- always a plus for the DCCC-- and they endorsed him during the primary and urged donors to not fund McGrath). Over the course of the primary, McGrath, the novice candidate, got better and better and in the end, she shoved the DCCC's Blue Dog multimillionaire up their ass. In a 6-person race, she made the DCCC sad:

• Amy McGrath- 48,860 (48.7%)
• Jim Gray- 40,684 (40.5%)
• Reggie Thomas- 7,226 (7.2%)

Mayor Gray spent $1,437,206 on the primary (including $250,000 out of his own bank account) but it is Amy McGrath who is now duking it out-- a much better candidate than she was when she started-- with Republican Andy Barr, in Kentucky's only swing district. After the primary, the DCCC took another look at her and seeing she isn't too progressive for them, endorsed her and added her to their Red-to-Blue page. Though the district went to Trump 54.7% to 39.4% and has a PVI of R+9, the race is neck-and-neck and if the anti-red wave holds, McGrath has an good chance to win.

The second wildly inspiring video (below)-- that seemingly came out of nowhere-- was from MJ (Mary Jennings) Hegar in a Texas backwater that no one was considering flippable, TX-31. She's running against right-wing Trump-enabler John Carter in a district north of Austin that stretches through Williamson and Bell counties, from Round Rock to Killeen and Temple. Bell County includes Fort Hood, the largest military base in the world. The district PVI is R+10 and Trump beat Hillary there 53.5% to 40.8%. Her policy platform looks decent. As of the June 30 filing deadline she had outraised Carter significantly-- $1,612,439 to $996,707 and had about $300,000 more than he did on hand. If the wave is big enough...



Yesterday, AP ran a story by Laurie Kellman and Bill Barrow, Next mission for women with military service: Run for office, as though the election cycle had just started and someone just came up with the idea. "Hegar," they wrote, "is part of a crop of female veterans running for Congress in this year’s midterm elections. Almost all Democrats and many of them mothers, they are shaped by the Sept. 11 attacks and overseas wars, including the longest war in American history. Many are retiring from the military and looking for another way to serve the country. They’re part of a record number of women running for seats in Congress, but in certain ways, they are a class apart. The female veterans claim expertise in national security and veterans issues, with a track record of thriving in institutions dominated by men. Regardless of party, they cast themselves as the antidote to bitterly partisan politics-- describing themselves as 'mission-driven' and trained by the military to work toward a common goal." Most are right of center within the Democratic Party and are being pushed by right-of-center Democrats with ambitious personal agendas for higher office, like Seth Moulton (D-MA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Joe Biden and Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL).

The increase in candidates with military experience is no accident, and the hopefuls are expected to be propelled by Democratic luminaries. Former Vice President Joe Biden, for example, is expected to campaign for McGrath, among others, according to officials close to them who spoke on condition of anonymity because the schedule is not set.

Two Democrats-- Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, a retired Marine Corps captain and Bronze Star recipient, and Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who lost her legs and partial use of an arm when her helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq-- have been instrumental in recruiting veterans to run for office.

Moulton said female veterans in his party carry a particular authority when talking to voters concerned about President Donald Trump’s leadership.

“It’s the year of the woman, but it’s also the year of yearning for bringing integrity and honor back to politics,” Moulton said. “We need Democrats with the credibility to tell people what’s really going on.”

The women are hardly the first to use their military service to their political advantage-- men have been doing it for decades.

One of the traditional knocks against female candidates is “they aren’t tough enough, they aren’t strong enough, and they might not have the leadership skills,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

Not female candidates who are veterans, particularly of combat.

“They kind of automatically get that kind of respect as leaders; it’s well-earned,” Walsh said. “It’s such a logical next step for people who are committed to this country and are committed to service.”

But their campaigns highlight a set of political concerns specific to female veterans.

The candidates acknowledge that their extraordinary stories of trailblazing military careers could make it difficult for some voters to relate to them. Will they come off as too tough or hawkish? Is it possible for any candidate, male or female, to overemphasize his or her military background in the post-9/11 era?

McGrath, who retired as a lieutenant colonel, opened her campaign with an online video in which she wears a bomber jacket, a fighter jet in the background.

McGrath sees herself as a bridge to male voters who “sort of see women as being weaker,” she said in a telephone interview. “But yeah, I have to make an effort to reach out to women and make sure that they’re not scared, or think that I’m too militant.”

Out came a 30-second spot that mentioned the 89 combat missions-- but focused on McGrath taking her three children to the pediatrician.

“I’m Amy McGrath and I approved this ad,” she says, as her young son takes off down a hallway with his pants down. “Because I’d like to see the other guys running deal with this.”

She upset popular Lexington Mayor Jim Gray in the Democratic primary and will take on Republican Rep. Andy Barr in November, a closely watched race considered competitive in a district Barr won by 22 points in 2016. Poised for the different calculus of the general election, Barr last week released an ad quoting McGrath saying of herself, “Hell yeah, I’m a feminist” and calling herself “a progressive.”

“Seriously? Is that all you got?” McGrath retorted in a video response, sharing the screen once again with a fighter jet. But this time, she traded her bomber jacket for a denim one.

Much of Hegar’s story was already public by the time she decided to challenge Republican Rep. John Carter in the Austin-area district, so she went for the full reveal-- tattoos and all.

Her video, “Doors,” features the door of the helicopter in which she was shot down on her third tour of Afghanistan as a combat search and rescue pilot. Her medals, including a Purple Heart, play a role, as does Hegar’s 2012 lawsuit against the federal government that forced it to repeal the ban on women in combat.

The spot also features an intimate detail: One of Hegar’s first memories was of her father throwing her mother through a glass door.

“That’s been one of the most difficult transitions for me, is talking about myself more,” Hegar said. “I hope that they take away that we have to start putting our faith in people who have a history of putting other people first, fighting against intimidation and bullying, and trying to do the right thing.”

Air Force veteran Gina Ortiz Jones, the Democratic nominee for a House seat in West Texas, hopes her active military duty and intelligence work will “neutralize this perceived strength” of Republicans as strong on security issues.

That could be important in the race for the San Antonio-area seat, currently held by Republican Rep. Will Hurd, a former CIA operative. Ortiz Jones supports single-payer health insurance, a position that could be considered too liberal for the district.

“‘Liberal’ isn’t a word that is normally used to describe my work in national security,” she said.

Trump is an existential danger to America-- if not the world. I'd vote for any of these candidates if I lived in their districts, but we might as well do it with our eyes open and our expectations realistic. And I can say with confidence that none of them are going to be on par with women like Ilhan Omar of Minneapolis, Alexandria Cortez of NYC, Pramila Jayapal of Seattle, Judy Chu of Los Angeles, Katherine Clark of suburban Boston, Jan Schakowsky of Chicagoland, Kara Eastman of Omaha or Rashida Tlaib of Detroit, the women I expect to be the tip of the spear when it comes to pushing a strong progressive policy agenda in 2019. I hope some of these miltary women get on board. We'll see.

Not military-- but a fighter and a leader for working families

GOP Greed: Taking From Disabled Vets To Make Their Wealthy Donors Richer

"I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves-- won’t lift a finger-- and expect the federal government to do everything." Although reactionary vulture, Utah scumbag Orrin Hatch said this in regard to the children who count of CHIP (which he helped kill), he might as well have been talking about disabled veterans as well, since he just voted to set the government on a path of destroying their lives too.

The Republican Tax Scam will have serious, even devastating, consequences for the nearly 20% of us who have disabilities-- greater tax burdens and decreased opportunities. As Robyn Powell explained last week to Rewire readers, "People with disabilities already have massive expenses and far less income, on average, than their non-disabled counterparts. Many of their medical necessities-- such as long-term care and certain wheelchairs-- are not covered by some insurance plans, including Medicare, and can cost an individual tens of thousands of dollars. These services are not just about one’s health; having access to a power wheelchair or in-home care can be the difference between living in an institution or a private residence. Right now, taxpayers may deduct out-of-pocket medical expenses if they exceed 10 percent of their adjusted gross income. Notably, 8.8 million people-- primarily people with disabilities and seniors, as well as their caregivers-- benefited from this important deduction last year." But to make life a tad more bearable for overburdened private jet owners, Ryan's Tax Scam eliminates the out-of-pocket medical expenses deduction

The ability to live and move in the world is also under assault by the GOP. Currently, small businesses can receive tax incentives for modifying their facilities so that people with disabilities can patronize their place of business (as well as comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA).

Disability-related small business tax incentives also help businesses employ people with disabilities by allowing them to deduct some expenditures related to accommodating those employees, such as providing sign language interpreters. The employment rates for people with disabilities are shockingly low: In 2015, only 35 percent of people with disabilities were employed compared with 76 percent of people without disabilities. As the party of “individual responsibility,” you would think that increasing employment across the board would be a priority for the GOP. However, without these important tax breaks for small businesses... far fewer people will be able to work.

Los Angeles area Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA), a veteran and an Air Force colonel is the West Coast regional Vice Chair for the DCCC. He told us that "The GOP tax scam will be a disaster for our veterans and our country. It is particularly disgusting that Republicans have proposed repealing tax credits to hire disabled veterans while at the same time giving billionaires and corporations a huge tax cut. Tax policy is ultimately a statement of priorities-- and Republicans like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are showing us what their priorities are, and it isn't our veterans."

I wonder if all those self professed Christians in the Republican Party ever think of Jesus' admonition: "As you do to the least of these, so do you do to me." This morning, Randy Bryce texted us that he had been going over parts of the GOP Tax Scam and one of the parts that infuriated him was how it penalizes veterans wounded in the line of duty. "After serving in the Army I returned home to Southeast Wisconsin," he told us. I saw fellow veterans without homes and I worked hand in hand-- through my union and with the Democratic Party and state government to bring needed assistance their way. That is the best of America and is the America I was proud to protect and serve. Targeting disabled veterans who served their country is especially cruel and unAmerican. Seeing this tax scam try and rip needed services away from my brothers and sisters who served sickens me. We didn't serve to protect a billionaires ability to fly a Learjet on the cheap. We served to protect the best of our American values. These frauds are shameful, and we will repeal and replace their leader in the house, Paul Ryan-- a man who appears to truly enjoy hurting those in need in order to see his billionaire buddy's smile."

Lieu and Bryce are exactly right: the Tax Scam falls especially hard on disabled veterans. Blue America talked to the progressive veterans running for Congress, listed on the page that clicking on the thermometer on the right takes you to. As Pennsylvania's Tom Prigg put it: "We fought for our country. Some returned home wounded. All we want is the ability to live a good, normal, productive life. To take care of our families. But now Keith Rothfus and the Republican’s new  tax bill will eliminate the Disabled Access Credit and the Work Opportunity Credit  tax credits for businesses who hire disabled people like our vets. This heartless bill not only takes away our wounded warrior’s ability to work and take care of their families, it also takes away their dignity by undermining their livelihood. Keith Rothfus, a congressman who never misses an opportunity for a veteran photo-op, supports this bill that will hurt tens-of-thousands of American Veterans and their families."

And Tom's concerns were echoed by all the veteran candidates we talked with. James Thompson is running for the Wichita, Kansas seat, held by Ryan rubberstamp Ron Estes. "Ron Estes is a hypocrite," he told us. "He gives lip service to supporting veterans by showing up to some high profile events to get free media coverage. Yet when the rubber meets the road, and he is given a real opportunity to help veterans, especially disabled veterans, he didn't have their six. He voted in favor of the Republicans’ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which will give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest of Americans, like the KOCH brothers here in my district. This is not tax reform, it is tax robbery paid for by robbing disabled veterans to pay the privileged princes of Wall Street. Ron Estes and his ilk, at the direction of these modern day robber barons, removed the Disabled Access Credit and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. Simply put, the Work Opportunity Credit incentivizes companies to hire disabled veterans, while the Disabled Access Credit allows them to actually hire disabled vets by making it possible for those same companies to afford special accommodations like ramps. Ending these two credits, harms veterans. PERIOD. Veterans need representatives to watch their six, not use it as an opportunity to stab them in the back. I promise every veteran out there, regardless of party, I will have your six, and will lead the way in making sure our countries heroes are taken care of when they go to war and when they return from it. I hope everyone will call and encourage their Senators and Representatives to vote FOR VETERANS by voting no on the #GOPTaxScam."

Jared Golden is the Maine House whip. He told us that: "Bruce Poliquin and his corporate allies in Washington are intent on funding their tax cuts on the backs of our children and disabled veterans. By adding over $1 trillion to the debt, future generations will be on the hook for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Where the tax plan does make up costs are on the backs of the disabled including our wounded fighting men and women. These tax credits are designed to create an incentive for businesses to hire disabled veterans and others with disabilities, I find it morally reprehensible that these laudable and effective tax credits are where Rep Poliquin and the Republicans in Congress want to find 'savings' so that millionaires and billionaires can buy an extra yacht, or a corporation can move more jobs overseas."

 

Doug Applegate: "A Labor Family Is What's Given Me The Values That's Made Me What I Am"

Frank Schaeffer has been traveling around the country meeting with the best progressive candidates for Congress and filming them. Last week he was in Orange County. We saw his talk with Laura Oatman, the progressive woman running for the coastal Orange County district held by Dana Rohrabacher, a few days ago. The video above is the interview he did with Doug Applegate.

Doug is, by far, the best candidate running to represent the district just south of Oatman's in southern Orange County and northern San Diego County. CA-49 goes from Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano and Ladera Ranch in the north, through San Clemente, Camp Pendleton, Oceanside, Vista and Encinitas to Solana Beach, Del Mar, Torrey Pines and UC, San Diego. Last cycle the Applegate-Issa election was the very last to be decided in the whole country because it was so close. The DCCC had never tried holding Darrell Issa accountable before. Doug forced them to and he came with in a small handful votes to beating one of Congress' arch-villains. The final vote was 155,888 (50.3%) to 154,267 (49.7%). Doug and his grassroots army announced that they would complete what they started in 2018.

But, almost immediately, along came the self-serving opportunists-- the forces of big money who had never objected to Darrell Issa and had never done anything to defeat him. Failed Virginia political hack and sleazy multimillionaire-- and Pelosi crony-- Ira Lechner decided he needed to put one of his own puppets into a race that looked very winnable... and he picked some clown and Hillary fundraiser named Mike Levin. Then San Diego New Dem-- one of Congress' richest men and one of the most right-wing Democrats in Congress-- Scott Peters decided the seat could be bought by one of his crooked cronies, Paul Kerr (because we all know that if there's one thing Congress needs more of it's clueless mega-millionaires). Not to be outdone, the young heiress to the Qualcomm fortune, Sara Jacobs, came flying in from Brooklyn last week to declare she's running too. What a pathetic nest of cruddy opportunists and self-servers!

Meanwhile, Issa is hoping his crooked Republican colleague, Duncan Hunter from the district next door (CA-50) gets indicted already so he can switch districts and not have to face near certain defeat at Applegate's hands next year. Issa, normally a dependable rubber stamp for the GOP House leadership, is so frightened of Applegate that he was one of only 13 Republicans in Congress to vote against Paul Ryan's tax scam last week.

This is going to be some wild race! We should make sure the Democratic Party nominee is a man of proven selfless integrity and strength, not another multimillionaire with nothing better to do than have the word "Rep" on their business card. Levin, for example, is playing the role of a poisonous snake, slithering around and whispering all the baseless and disproven charges Issa made against Applegate last cycle-- recycling the garbage... all he can do with no ideas of his own beyond "me," "me," "me."  He's the worst example of a candidate in a Democratic primary race anywhere in California. Please consider tapping on the ActBlue 2018 California Congress thermometer on the right and celebrating Thanksgiving by helping Doug Applegate in his sprint to repealing and replacing the odious career criminal Darrell Issa. Remember, there's no such thing as a contribution too small, not in a grassroots race against the richest-- and most crooked-- member of Congress.

Why Ted Lieu Just Endorsed Randy Bryce

You want this guy fighting on your side?

One of my favorite establishment journalists called today to ask me about Randy Bryce and see if he could find out how he created his brand. (Maybe he wants to sell the "secret" to the DCCC.) We wound up getting into an argument when he asked me about the "white working class" and I refused to engage on that establishment construct and insisted on talking about "the working class." He was unconvinced and I'll let you know when his @IronStache story comes out. Meanwhile, though, Bill Scher had something to say about how the Democrats are going about trying to win back the House with their "white working-class framing." In Politico this week, he wrote that "Democrats anxious about the white working-class vote found fresh hope last week in the gangbusters campaign launch of an otherwise unknown former fighter pilot named Amy McGrath. Her video "quickly became a sensation, already scoring 1 million YouTube views-- three times the number of people who voted in the last election in Kentucky’s 6th District, where she plans to run. In 36 hours of the video release, McGrath raised nearly $200,000 in online donations" even though no one knows where she stands on key issues that face the country-- like Medicare-For-All or free college or a $15 minimum wage.

It’s not hard to understand why Democrats are sending the video around, and sending checks in her direction: 45 years after George McGovern’s bust of an anti-war campaign, 37 years after President Jimmy Carter's ill-fated hostage rescue mission and almost three decades since Michael Dukakis thought it was a good idea to take a tank ride, Democrats still believe they have to prove they’re not a bunch of national security softies. Republicans have colonized the “guns and guts” vote so thoroughly that they’ve started to see every tough-talking Democrat who comes along as the next savior of the party. Before McGrath, the working-class hero du jour was Randy Bryce, or “Ironstache,” the Wisconsin Army vet and House candidate whose introductory video melted Democratic hearts as he skewered Speaker Paul Ryan’s attempt to repeal Obamacare. He raised serious coin, too: $430,000 from 16,000 donors in about two weeks. And some Democrats already are fanning a crush on Iraq War vet Seth Moulton to top the presidential ticket in 2020, even though he’s not yet 40 years old and has only won two elections on the Massachusetts North Shore.

So no one knows what McGrath stands for. Bryce is an outspoken progressive and Moulton... well ProgressivePunch rates him an "F" and his voting record this session, the most conservative of any member from Massachusetts, is 61.11, even worse than notorious conservative Stephen Lynch who's being primaried from a progressive. A colleague of Moulton's just reminded me that he "has been one of the most self-serving members undermining progressives. He has refused to back Medicare-for-All. He attacked Pramila Jayapal, the vice ranking member [of his committee], as not fiscally responsible. He has consistently attacked Nancy Pelosi from the right and is leading the charge for the caucus to go in a more 'moderate' direction. His senior advisor is David Gergen who has advised him that triangulation and attacking progressives is his path to power. He and Jason Kander both are talking this approach to run for the White House. They are louder in their attacks on progressives than many Republicans."

They're all military people-- and they're all different. Blue America has a special ActBlue page for veterans running on overtly progressive platforms. We'd love to put McGrath on that page... but we have to find out if she's more like Randy Bryce or more like Seth Moulton. Scher wrote that the DCCC's military fetish makes sense, at least "on paper. There’s just one problem. Ever since the Iraq War, Democrats have always recruited a robust slate of military vets. And they usually lose. It might be emotionally satisfying for Democrats to see a bad-ass veteran talk about landing fighter jets on aircraft carriers while proudly wearing the Democratic badge. But the warm feeling obscures the fact that viral videos, no matter how patriotic, don’t turn deep red districts blue. Every dollar that goes to flashy pipe dreams like McGrath or Bryce-- [yes, yes, Scher can an out-of-touch, Beltway moron with his head up the DCCC's ass, but I want to make a point and he gets plenty right, even if he's behind the curve on what's happening outside of the Beltway]-- is a dollar that doesn’t go to the dozens of dull candidates with a plausible shot at flipping a seat. (And, yes, most people who win House races are dull. Turn on C-SPAN for five minutes if you don’t believe me.)"

It’s not just McGrath or Bryce. Democrats are betting heavily on military veterans to break through what political polarization and gerrymandered districts have done to their seat share in Congress, and particularly the House of Representatives, where they are down to 201 seats, versus 234 Republican ones. The New York Times reported last month that “Democratic Party leaders are aggressively seeking former members of the military” to flip Trump districts, both because they represent a challenge to career politicians, and because they take the security-toughness card away from Republicans. About 20 Democratic veterans have announced challenges in Republican House districts, with more expected before summer is out.

There’s no inherent problem with Democratic candidates who are veterans. But it’s a lazy assumption that red turf can be easily poached by a candidate who can stir some feel-good patriotism and bring a healthy dose of swagger from the “real America.” If you’re a Democrat, sharing a video of a McGrath or a Bryce affirms to your social media networks that your party isn’t made up of precious snowflakes. Donating might seem like a chance to support that vision of the party—full-throated, muscular, ready to fire the jets for 2018. (“This is the Kind of Ad that Keeps Paul Ryan Up at Night,” crowed Mother Jones, about McGrath’s video.) But the question that matters is how to identify and prioritize winnable seats. The quest for vets threatens to turn the party into a bunch of deluded Don Quixotes, chasing after districts far out of Democratic reach.

Democratic fascination with veterans as a congressional strategy began in 2006, when public frustration with the Iraq War was peaking. Forty-nine general election House candidates were branded as “Fighting Dems.” Only five won, four of whom took Republican-held seats. But putting veterans up front gave Democrats extra credibility when criticizing the war.

Since then, Democratic House strategists, and willing Democratic primary voters, have continued to lean on veterans, even though their batting average has only gotten worse. According to data provided by the Veterans Campaign and Military Times congressional reporter Leo Shane III, Democrats nominated 42 veterans for House races in 2016 and 54 in 2014. Each time, only three veterans won, and all succeeded fellow Democrats. No Democratic military veteran has defeated an incumbent House Republican since 2012, when Tammy Duckworth of Illinois took out the vitriolic Joe Walsh, who publicly complained that Duckworth talked about her service too much. (She also defeated an incumbent Senate Republican last November.)

Before Duckworth, four Democratic vets took Republican-held seats in the 2008 election, but that was hardly a model class. Two of the four were defeated in their 2010 reelection bids, and a third resigned after charges of groping and sexual harassment. Today, there are only 18 veterans in the House Democratic caucus, eight of whom were first elected in 2006 or thereafter.

To be fair, a poor electoral track record is no reason for Democrats to give up on military veteran candidates. Those who served bring valuable experience and perspective to a governmental body that funds our armed services and plays a major role in national security policy. And swiping a district across gerrymandered lines is an exceedingly difficult task, regardless of a candidate’s biography. Just because many veterans fall short doesn’t mean lawyers, business owners or local legislators would offer better odds.

But candidates with compelling bios and polished videos do create a “shiny object” problem at the national level, distracting Democratic attention from bigger problems with the party’s messaging and connection to working-class voters, and from the races that provide the most plausible path to the speakership.

Democrats need to flip 24 seats to take control of the House. According to the Cook Political Report as of late July, there are 52 Republican-held seats that are competitive, and that’s under a generous definition of “competitive,” including 23 seats deemed “likely” to remain in Republican hands. Kentucky's 6th District, where McGrath is running, doesn’t make the cut—the incumbent, Rep. Andy Barr, has won the seat by about 20 points in the past two elections, and both Donald Trump and Mitt Romney won the district by double digits. The only way McGrath wins in a district like that is if the bottom completely falls out from under the GOP. A fighter jet video is not going to tip the district over.

Nor, by the way, does Wisconsin’s first congressional district, where Bryce is challenging Speaker Ryan, make the competitive list. The district’s pinkish hue-- Obama snatched it in 2008, though Trump notched a double-digit win here in 2016-- has always given Democrats false hope that Ryan was vulnerable. But he’s never had a close race, and he’s run 10 times.

Beltway pundits like Scher who write about elections are usually worth reading the day after the election when they have a better chance to get things right. The DCCC has never contested Ryan's district because Pelosi has a policy of not challenging GOP leaders, so I'm not sure what "false hope" he's talking about. The seat is winnable because people hate Ryan in the district-- his reelect numbers predict he will lose-- and because Randy is a unique candidate with a powerful brand, of which his military service is just one part. McGrath is also in a district that can flip-- if she can connect with KY-06 voters the way Bryce is connecting with WI-01 voters. It can't just be all biography; voters want to know what candidates plan to do for them. Bryce is telling them loudly and clearly. I hope McGrath's very establishment Blue Dog campaign manager-- he ran Ben Chandler's campaigns-- and the expensive Beltway consultants she'll waste money from the inspirational video brings in on don't make her into another Ossoff, which is always what people like that try to do. Always.

Scher ends by pointing out that "There’s little about being a veteran that makes it easier to speak on the bread and butter issues that matter in elections, a lesson Democrats learned the hard way in 2004-- when former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark flamed out as a primary candidate, and then another military veteran, Sen. John Kerry, lost in the general election to a guy who’d avoided the Vietnam War, but was far more plainspoken. Weakness with the white working class certainly hampers the Democrats’ ability to take advantage of Trump’s abysmal job approval and Congress’ meager legislative output. But to solve that problem, Democrats can’t simply call in the cavalry, no matter how many times they try." He's right about that. Among Congress' very best members are veterans-- like Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)-- and some of its less than stellar members are as well. In fact Both Lieu and Gallego have endorsed Bryce-- Lieu just an hour ago:

"Randy Bryce is an extraordinary candidate and we're lucky to have him running for Congress. It would be a very healthy development for the House to have more members who are as committed to the interests of working families and to veterans as he is. I've spoken with Randy and, like several of my colleagues, I've gotten to know him. I can tell you that I look forward to working with him on the issues of social justice, jobs and economic equality. Climate change and national security motivated me to run for Congress, and I know Randy will champion those issues as well. Washington Democrats have a lot to learn from Randy Bryce; he has a big future in our party and for our country. I am endorsing Randy because he will do a far better job for Wisconsin and our nation than Paul Ryan."

Why Haven't Mark Penn And Trump Endorser Andrew Stein Joined The GOP Yet?

One way for Democrats to start winning elections and rebuilding their tattered brand would be to pay very close attention to all the advice they get from Mark Penn-- and then do the exact opposite. Yesterday Penn teamed up with Andrew Stein to tell the Democrats all they need to know about how to continue losing. Penn's an ad guy, poster and political strategist. He's always wrong about everything and his advice very much helped turn the personal brands of both Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to shit. He was a key Hillary Clinton advisor in 2008 and most observers of that race give him immense credit for her loss.

Penn teamed up with hereditary multimillionaire Andrew Stein-- a former boyfriend of Ann Coulter, a failed, dumb-as-brick New York politician who once famously was caught soliciting the Republican nomination for mayor of New York City and was later arrested for his involvement with a ponzi scheme and endorsed Trump for president-- for their centrism-uber-alles OpEd in the Times.

I can't imagine anyone would be surprised to hear Penn and Finkelstein (his real name) denouncing progressives, urging the Democratic Party to move right the way they and all their greed-obsessed cronies have, and rewriting history to glorify their reactionary instincts. Both are masters of collaborationist politics. They would have been perfect advisors to Marshall Pétain in France or Vidkun Quisling in Norway during WWII.

Sad!

They really hate Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and everything they stand for-- especially honesty, ethics and opposition to elite corruption, elite corruption being the center piece of Penn's and Stein's entire lives. To them, the Democratic Party has "embraced sharply leftist ideas" and they blame all the losses the party has suffered on the left instead of on the Republican wing-- their wing-- of the Democratic Party. 'If only the Democrats were more elitist, more corrupt, more bigoted they would still own the working class' is the tired Penn/Stein thesis. Lee Fang had a better explanation of Penn's OpEd at The Intercept yesterday: he now invests in Republican advocacy firms-- and profits from the electoral defeat of Democrats. He's a part owner of the GOP consulting firm that advices Trump and developed strategy for the Handel win over Ossoff in Georgia last month. But certain types of Democrats still take Penn seriously and value his advice.

In an OpEd for TIME Magazine today, Raúl Grijalva noted that "As Democrats, the secret to reviving our fortunes turns out not to be a secret at all: The American people want us, and anyone else who hopes to earn their vote, to talk about economic fairness, which they still feel is in short supply. They want us to lay out a plan for making sure they share in the profits they help create. They want to hear that from top to bottom, Democrats will close corporate tax loopholes and make sure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share."

How do we know? A comprehensive post-election analysis by the polling and consulting firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, funded by multiple groups with nothing to gain by paying for bad information, found that fully 60% of voters believe “Jobs still don’t pay enough to live on and it is a struggle to save anything”-- and that belief motivated their votes. The same analysis found that when Clinton changed the focus of her campaign message from the economy (on which she soundly beat Trump for months, especially after the presidential debates) to a vague call for “unity and opportunity,” she lost the most important ground of the campaign: who voters trusted more to help their pocketbooks.

According to Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, by the end of the campaign, voters ultimately trusted Trump more on the economy by a 48-42 margin. That simple fact transcended a good number of the other factors in play last November. Unless the President ushers in the era of blanket prosperity he keeps promising, being trusted on the economy will be similarly decisive in 2018, 2020 and beyond.

Perhaps just as importantly, the firm found that a generic congressional candidate running on a message of economic contrast-- roughly, “Democrats support investing in Social Security, education and jobs with rising incomes, while Republicans support tax cuts for the richest”-- significantly outperformed a more general contrast with Trump and his personality across multiple demographic groups. Like it or not, what you’ll do is more important to voters than who you are or what private values you stand for. Democrats need to understand that.

Wednesday the NY Times reported on the latest establishment trick: another new identity politics groups the DCCC is pushing. Pushing identity politics is so much easier-- if you're talking to idiots-- than making a case for an individual based on policy. But it doesn't work. Here are just a half dozen of the common identity groups always being pushed on Democrats and in each case, someone great from that group and someone who personifies complete garbage politics. Next to each name is their ProgressivePunch crucial vote score for the current session. Ready?

• Women: Pramila Jayapal (100- A), Kyrsten Sinema (12.50- F)
• Black: Barbara Lee (100- A), Dave Scott (59.09- F)
• Hispanic: Raul Grijalva (100- A), Henry Cuellar (16.67- F)
• Jewish: Jan Schakowsky (100- A), Josh Gottheimer (25.00- F)
• LGBT: Mark Pocan (100- A), Sean Patrick Maloney (41.67- F)
• Asian: Judy Chu (95.83- A), Ami Bera (29.17- F)

You can do this with any identity group-- find a great one with an "A" rating and then find a piece of crap from the same identity group with an "F" rating. The latest one the DCCC is pushing: military veterans. So you wind up with great members of Congress and congressional candidates who are vets-- like Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Randy Bryce (D-WI) and then you find-- despite appreciating their service-- the ones who make terrible members of Congress because of their stands on issues, a Tulsi Gabbard or Seth Moulton for example (a couple of "F"s).

Of course what the DCCC is trying to do now is say, forget about where this piece of crap candidate we dug up stands on the issues that are important to you, support them because if you don't you aren't patriotic and you're disrespecting our fighting men and women. Sick. Wasn't that DCCC chairman, Ben Ray Lujan, a draft-dodger? And the chairman of the DCCC's shitty recruitment committee, Denny Heck? But never you mind if Chrissy Houlihan (PA), Mikie Sherrill (NJ), Joseph Kopser (TX)-- also trying to get over as part of the "scientist" identity group-- Dan McCready (NC) or Brendan Kelly (IL) is the best qualified Democrat in the primary, if they're the DCCC-recruited candidate and a veteran... that's the one and don't even think about it. As we were saying earlier, Kopser sucks, veteran or not. There are much better candidates in TX-21. This is a very poor way to pick a candidate to represent you.

When it comes to evaluating candidates, military service could be a plus-- it's certainly made Randy Bryce a better candidate, for example-- but it is no more a substitute for a worldview that shapes a policy agenda than is the color of someone's skin or their religion or gender.

Is The GOP Obsession With Taking Away People's Health Insurance A Suicide Mission?

This morning, a new Quinnipiac poll found that only 36% of American voters say Republicans in Congress should try again to repeal and replace Obamacare, the 2010 Affordable Care Act, while 60% say the Republicans should "move on." What's more, voters disapprove 65-29% of the way Trump is handling health care. According to an earlier poll, just 17% of Americans supported Ryan's TrumpCare proposal. In fact, it was so unpopular that dozens of Republicans told the GOP House leadership they couldn't vote for it. So Ryan pulled the bill. At first, Trump was happy and said it was time to move on to "tax reform," meaning giving massive tax breaks to multimillionaires and billionaires. Then someone told Trump the money they would have saved by kicking 24 million people off health care was the money they needed for the tax breaks. So suddenly he was demanding Ryan go back to the drawing board and rework TrumpCare and get it passed. This week-- while Congress was on Easter break and Republicans were being booed and heckled at town hall meetings across the country-- "the GOP" came up with the "new" TrumpCare proposal. Short version: it's far worse than the original.

Freedom Caucus head-man Mark Meadows (R-NC), whose goal is to end government's role in healthcare entirely, and hapless New Jersey conservative Tom MacArthur worked out a "compromise." The stand-out provision is getting rid of protections for people with pre-existing conditions. These:

Matt Fuller and Jonathan Cohn pointed out in their HuffPo coverage that "with Republicans effectively going back on their repeated promises to guarantee coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, the amendment could lose a number of Republicans who already supported the legislation. In short, even though the Tuesday Group and the Freedom Caucus think they have a deal, Republicans writ large might have nothing."

Leadership is expected to discuss the amendment on a conference call this Saturday with GOP members, but public opinion might also affect the landscape. Republicans are trying to say their amendment will cover people with pre-existing conditions-- because, first, the legislation still claims those people can’t be denied coverage, and second, because there will be high-risk pools for those people if insurance costs dramatically go up for them.

The reality, however, is that insurers would be able to effectively deny coverage by pricing sick people out of the market.

“This effectively allows states to eliminate the ACA’s guarantee of access to insurance at a reasonable price for people with pre-existing conditions, in the interest of lowering premiums for people who are healthy,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, said upon seeing a description of the proposal. “It seems to tilt heavily towards what the Freedom Caucus has been looking for.”

Republicans argue that the high-risk pools would then cover those people, taking them out of the regular insurance pool and lowering prices for everyone else, but high-risk pools have traditionally been underfunded by states and the federal government, resulting in poor coverage and high costs for those who need insurance the most.

Those concerns may be significant enough that, even with MacArthur’s blessing, the deal does not win over moderates. The concessions also might not be enough for some conservatives, who have expressed issue with Republicans establishing an advance refundable tax credit to help pay for insurance.

Republicans need 216 votes to pass their health care bill, and based on statements from GOP members, even with the support of the entire Freedom Caucus for the amendment, there may be enough moderate hold-outs to prevent passage anyway. (MacArthur doesn’t count as a convert; he supported the last bill, albeit reluctantly.)

The amendment wouldn’t seem to address the big concerns moderates have expressed-- like raising the cap on how much insurers can charge seniors or cutting $880 billion from Medicaid. These changes are among the reasons that the Congressional Budget Office predicted the House health care legislation would increase the number of people without insurance by 24 million within a decade.

Many Republicans-- particularly in the Senate-- have said such deep cuts are not acceptable. Just this week, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said he couldn’t support a proposal that jeopardized coverage for the approximately 300,000 people in his state dependent on the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion.

Public opinion has also shifted since the repeal effort began in earnest-- and it has shifted decisively against Republicans and their cause. The Affordable Care Act is more popular than ever, and in a recent Pew Research Center poll, 54 percent of Americans said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans on health care, while just 35 percent said they trusted Republicans more. That’s the biggest advantage for Democrats on health care since 2009.

In short, some leaders in the GOP conference might think they have a deal, but they also might have just found a way to make the bill even more unpalatable for Republicans, thus bringing Congress no closer at all.

This sour news came out on the same day that the Urban Institute reported that veterans too young for Medicare made tremendous gains in health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act. "[U]ninsurance among veterans," they report, "fell from 9.6 percent in 2013 to 5.9 percent in 2014, a nearly 40 percent drop. That's 429,000 veterans under the age of 65 who gained health insurance coverage during the first two years of ACA implementation, primarily through Medicaid expansion, privately purchased plans and marketplace coverage. Although expansion of coverage transcended all demographic lines, vets with the lowest incomes saw the greatest increase in coverage, especially in states that adopted Medicaid expansion. 20% of the uninsured vets live in Republican-controlled states like Texas and Florida that attempted to sabotage the Affordable Care Act by refusing to expand Medicaid. If TrumpCare is implemented these coverage advances would be wiped out, leaving hundreds of thousands of vets without coverage again.

MacArthur did a town hall for seniors this week. An airplane kept flying around the event

Meadows' very gerrymandered and very backward western North Carolina district voted for Trump overwhelmingly-- 63.2% to 34.0%. Even in a massive anti-Trump/anti-GOP tsunami, his seat would likely be safe. A 20 point swing away from the Republicans-- like KS-04 experienced last week-- would leave Meadows spewing his extremist claptrap in Congress in 2019. Not so in NJ-03, Tom MacArthur's South Jersey district. It voted for Trump as well-- but more narrowly: 51.4% to 45.2%. Even a 10% swing would leave MacArthur out in the cold, if the DCCC had a plausible candidate. In 2016 they didn't and they have signaled that they're not going to be targeting MacArthur in 2018. So far there is no candidate running against him.

Tom MacArthur makes a deal to screw vets out of healthcare

Will The DCCC Screw Up Candidate Recruitment As Badly This Cycle As They Have In The Last 5?

People need to remember something important. While we LOVE that Democrats in Congress are standing up to Trump and standing up to Trumpism, the participation in a kind of resistance is NOT the same thing as progressive politics. Believe it or not, quite a few people are missing the distinction. (That said, by the way, Blue America has a page for effective leaders of the congressional resistance-- all of whom happen to also be bona fide progressives.) But remember, there are New Dems and Blue Dogs who find it politically expedient to stand up to Trump too. Adam Schiff (New Dem-CA), for example, is doing a good job at it-- and deserves our appreciation. But that doesn't make him a progressive. Kirsten Gillibrand, a quintessential identity politics corporate shill, has tried to confuse the two as she gears up for an eventual presidential or vice presidential run.

Remember when scores of Democrats announced they were't going to his inauguration? It may have started with progressives like Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL) and Katherine Clark (D-MA) and spread to real-deal progressives like Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY) Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Raul Grijalva (R-AZ) and Barbara Lee (D-CA), eventually even some relatively conservative Democrats-- like Raul Ruiz (D-CA), Juan Vargas (D-CA), Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX), Darren Soto (D-FL), even head Blue Dog Kurt Schrader (D-OR)-- saw it as a politically advantageous thing to do.

But the DCCC, of course, doesn't see it through the same lens. If some kind of resistance is a way to ask for money from the grassroots and if "resistance" will help elect their candidates, there's nothing more to it. Last weekend the DCCC hosted a conference for candidates at the DC headquarters. It could have been called the "We Stand For Nothing But Identity Politics-- And Hating Trump-- Conference."

Democrats are looking to turn the Donald Trump resistance movement into an army of candidates to try to take back the House in 2018.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee leaders have already met with 255 potential candidates across 64 districts, convinced that the shifting political environment has opened new opportunities that they’ll chase in next year’s midterms.

A rough profile of their ideal candidate has started to emerge: veterans, preferably with small business experience too. They’d like as many of them to be women or people who’ve never run for office before-- and having young children helps.

There's never a discussion of issues of course-- which is why the DCCC is just all about losing elections. It's all about identity, nothing more-- another reason why people vomit when they think about the Democratic Party, even with a lowlife like Trump in the White House.

This past Saturday, candidates preparing to be in the first round of campaign announcements quietly made their way to DCCC headquarters in Washington for the first pre-launch boot camp, following several staff training sessions. Half the attendees were women, and half were veterans, according to a DCCC official.

They’ll formalize the focus on recruiting veterans on Tuesday, with a meeting at headquarters between DCCC leaders and Vote Vets, a liberal group focused on veterans’ issues, convened by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), herself a veteran who was one of the Democrats to flip a Senate seat last year.

“Especially among the younger generation of veterans, you have a community that is far less conservative than people might think,” Duckworth said, adding that she’s talked in depth about House races in 2018 or 2020 to a dozen veterans among people just back from tours and those expecting to be completing them soon-- including two female helicopter pilots.

Duckworth says she’s been urging them to think of Congress as to how to extend their service and have a voice on the Defense budget and international affairs.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who’ll also be at the Tuesday meeting, is already deep into his own personal recruitment project, claiming 22 fellow veterans who have either committed to run or are in deep conversations with Democrats about the possibility.

“I don’t think you have to be a veteran to run for office, but when you’re looking for a group of people who might be able to rise above the bitter partisan gridlock, veterans are a good place to look,” Moulton said.

Moulton said for the most part, the conversations have started with veterans reaching out to him, calling Trump’s election a turning point. He’s guided some to statehouse races instead, but brought many of them into the DCCC process and started getting them flown to Washington for meetings with leaders and staff.

“Washington seems like a dirty place. But so was Afghanistan. And so was Iraq. And we’re going to clean it up,” Moulton says he tells them. “Donald Trump’s policies are terrible for our national security-- what group of people better to point that out than a group of Democratic veterans?”

People with ideas-- veterans or non-veterans.

One of the candidates Blue America is backing in Texas, Tom Wakely, is a veteran and veterans' issues are important to him and front and center in his platform. But he's not the kind of caricature of a candidate Moulton and the DCCC are looking for. Example-- KUT, the huge Austin public broadcasting station ran a devastating piece yesterday on Tom's opponent, Lamar Smith, clueless right-wing chairman of the House Science Committee, Austin Congressman Lamar Smith Leads The Charge Against Environmental Regulations. Smith doesn't believe in science, although he is a Christian Scientist instead. Much of the KUT report is already familiar to DWT readers-- about how Smith is "a leading voice in setting the party's agenda when it comes to science and environmental regulation... [and how] some worry that agenda could have a chilling effect on research and policy." You can listen to the report at the link just above. But this afternoon, Wakely told us that "Smith has always put his party's agenda before his country. His utter contempt for the scientific community is not just appalling but extremely dangerous. His views on medicine and science are warped, in my opinion, by his belief in the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy, the founder and leader of the Christian Science movement. Like Eddy, Smith more than likely believes that death is simply an illusion. So what does it matter if we destroy the world and everyone and everything on it dies, it is simply an illusion. Then again, maybe his views on the environment and climate change are more a reflection of those who contribute to his campaign coffers-- big oil and the like. Who know what makes Smith tick, I certainly don't. I know people don't want to hear this but Lamar Smith is a political genius. He licked his finger, held it up and determined which way the political wind was blowing. He was the first Congressman to contribute to Trump's presidential campaign and among the first to endorse him. He did this because he saw Trump as the vehicle to spread the lie that climate change isn't real and that the EPA was doing more harm than good. Smith, like Trump, like the Nazi Reich Minister of Propaganda, Paul Joseph Goebbels, understands that if you tell a big enough lie, like climate change is not real and the EPA is doing more harm than good and keep repeating it and repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. That's the genius of Lamar Smith. Tell big lies and keep repeating them, over and over again."

We're supporting Wakely because of his stands on issues and his personal integrity, not because of anything to do with identity politics. We hope you will too-- something you can do by clicking on this link.