Harold Ford Starts His Campaign With A Long List Of Easily Refutable Lies

Lieberman-like conservative Harold Ford

How long will Democratic campaign operative Joe Trippi be able to ride on the goodwill progressives feel for Howard Dean's? He starts his boneheaded post on why New Yorkers need a Harold Ford candidacy with "As the campaign manager for Howard Dean..." Give me a break!

He says he thinks "it's important to have independent voices in the Democratic Party," which means Harold Ford should run. In what way is one of the worst corporate shills and Wall Street patsies in the Democratic Party "an independent voice?" Jonathan Tasini, who is also running for that Senate seat, is an independent voice. Harold Ford, president of the DLC, is a Republican voice in the Democratic Party.

"Primaries," posits Trippi, "allow for real debate about issues, new solutions and new ideas, and they allow for the challenging of stale thinking that often takes hold in a party’s establishment." I agree 100%. But what does that have, by any stretch of the imagination with Harold Ford? Even where he has been at odds with the Democratic establishment-- he's anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-war, pro-torture and generally adamantly opposed to efforts that favor working families over our corporate overlords-- he's trying to curry favor with New York State Democrats by noisily doing about-faces on all those issues. His old positions were all well and good for Tennessee, where those attitudes get quite a bit of truck, but in New York... Ford has been busy re-writing history to paint himself as pro-choice and pro-gay. Unfortunately for him, his career long voting record is widely available.

Harold Ford is an independent voice in the Democratic Party the same way-- the exact same way-- Joe Lieberman is an independent voice in the Democratic Party: no way at all. If Harold Ford was white, he would have left the Democratic Party along with the rest of the reactionary Democrats who joined the GOP in the last few decades. He didn't have that option. His OpEd in yesterday's NY Post is filled with delusion. He claims people are falsifying his record. Here's his record, and here and here or is the congressional record false?

"New Yorkers deserve a free election," he asserts oh so boldly. No wonder Tennessee is so happy to not have to worry about this weasel ever coming back to plague them again!

I am pro-choice-- have always been since I entered politics almost 15 years ago. My cumulative grade with NARAL during 10 years in Congress was right at 80 percent. Any assertions to the contrary are false.

Ford has always been known as a liar. He's still a liar. NARAL doesn't even issue cumulative voting record scores. And yesterday they took issue with Ford's bullshit; Nancy Keenan, their president:

"Former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. today claimed that he is pro-choice and has a cumulative record of voting with NARAL Pro-Choice America 80 percent of the time during his tenure in Congress. NARAL Pro-Choice America tracks every choice-related vote in Congress, but we don't issue cumulative percentages of lawmakers' voting records. What's clear is that Mr. Ford did not have a consistently pro-choice record during his decade in Congress. On some of the most difficult reproductive-rights issues, such as the Bush Federal Abortion Ban and the anti-choice Child Custody Protection Act, Rep. Ford cast anti-choice votes.

"In March 2009, NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC endorsed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand for election to U.S. Senate in 2010.  As a member of the House and now a member of the Senate, Sen. Gillibrand has compiled a fully pro-choice voting record. We are proud to support Sen. Gillibrand's campaign and will continue to do so regardless of who considers a primary challenge to her."

Media Matters also noticed a pattern of false assertions littering Ford's pathetically deceptive OpEd-- and, as they routinely do, rebutted lie after lie, primarily by quoting Ford. For example: "No, No. I was not pro-choice at one time, we don't have votes like that in the Congress... I'm pro-life, I'm pro-life Tucker. So I mean, I don't run from that." He sure is now. We'll let you know as soon as Trippi is officially on the payroll. Meanwhile Ford is building his brand all over the media, even beyond the confines of his boosters at Morning Joe. His NY Times interview last night seemed, if only inadvertently, to emphasize that he is as far from being "one of us" as if he was from Saturn instead of Tennessee. The vice chairman of Merrill Lynch/Bank of America lives in a very different NY than the one I was born and raised in.

On many days, he is driven to an NBC television studio in a chauffeured car. He and his wife, Emily, a 29-year-old fashion executive, live a few blocks from the Lexington Avenue subway line in the Flatiron district. But Mr. Ford said he takes the subway only occasionally in the winter, to avoid the cold when he cannot hail a cab.

Asked whether he had visited all five boroughs, he mentioned taking a helicopter ride across the city with fellow executives, at the invitation of Raymond W. Kelly, New York City’s police commissioner. “The only place I have not spent considerable time is Staten Island,” he said, adding that “I landed there in the helicopter, so I can say yes.”

Asked about his baseball loyalties, he responded: “I am a Yankees fan,” and added that he had yet to visit Citi Field, the home of the Mets.

He has breakfast most mornings at the Regency Hotel on Park Avenue, and he receives regular pedicures. (He described them as treatment for a foot condition.)

Mr. Ford declined to discuss what he is paid by the bank, but publicly available data suggests that he earns at least $1 million a year. Asked what role outsize pay packages played in fueling the financial crisis, Mr. Ford said he objected to capping executive compensation on Wall Street. “I am a capitalist,” he said. “I believe that people take risk, and there are rewards if they do well; they should lose if they don’t.”

What risk did he take that merits the kind of excessive salary he's getting from Merrill Lynch, which clearly hopes he'll follow Rahm Emanuel's footsteps into power where he can serve their interests? I guess the helicopter rides over the other 4 boroughs could be a risk-- or maybe the pedicures could result in an infection. Blecchhh. Kirsten Gillibrand is looking better by the minute.

Let me finish this discussion by quoting a couple of relevent paragraphs from Glenn Hurowitz's excellent book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party about why Ford is viewed-- even by other ConservaDems-- as a complete and toxic loser. The short version: inauthentic, then, now, always.

In a December 15, 2006 article, the cognitive scientist George Lakoff, famous for his groundbreaking works Don’t Think of an Elephant and Moral Politics, analyzed how Democrats could win in the south. He compared the loss of Tennessee Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr. to the surprise win of North Carolina congressman Heath Shuler, who ousted long-time arch-conservative Charles Taylor. Lakoff notes that while both Ford and Shuler were anti-choice, anti gay marriage, and anti-gun control, they presented themselves in very different ways. Lakoff cites an NPR interview in which reporter Melissa Block asked Shuler if his conservative positions on social issues would “fit in” with the Democratic Party. “It isn't about, necessarily, the social issues,” Shuler replied. “It's about protecting American families and American jobs, making sure that we increase the minimum wage and that we do things that encompass the entire nation and that will bring our nation together… [making] sure that we protect our country, and our God’s great creation, be good stewards of the land, and start providing health care that everyone can afford.” Shuler’s response deemphasized those issues on which he was more conservative and instead emphasized the progressive agenda that helped get him elected. And he stuck to that once he started casting votes-- sticking with his party on 92 percent of party loyalty votes; lower than average, but still quite high).

Ford, in contrast, tried to win by convincing voters that he was the more conservative option, basing his platform on conservative issues and a conservative framework. “He ran enthusiastically using conservative code words,” Lakoff writes. "Personal responsibility, strong moral values, character education, pro-family, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, eliminate abortion, and so on. He was trying to convince good ‘ol boy Tennesseans that he was one of them… he didn’t come across as authentic, and authenticity is the name of the game.”

Ford played the “Who’s more conservative?” game-- not surprisingly, the real conservative Republican won. Meanwhile other red staters (like Montana’s Jon Tester) were able to take advantage of the anti-Republican climate by running on a progressive agenda and emphasize their differences with Bush and the Republicans. So while Tester beat a heavily-financed incumbent in a state more Republican than Tennessee, Ford couldn’t do it even though his race was an open seat. 

Despite Ford’s disastrous strategy and defeat, James Carville actually spearheaded a campaign to make him DNC chair and replace Howard Dean (who had been largely responsible for the 50 state strategy of distributing resources around the country that helped relative dark horses like Shuler and Tester to win), where he could bring his losing politics to the nation. Fortunately, the Democrats actually in charge of electing the DNC chief decided they didn’t want a loser to replace a winner, and kept Dean on. But the Democratic Leadership Council had no such compunctions about hiring a loser. And so on January 25, 2007 the DLC named the Ford to be its head. It was a perfect match between an organization that had brought a failing strategy to the Democratic Party and a man who had ridden their failing strategy to actual defeat-- and apparently hadn’t learned his lesson.

HAROLD FORD OR JOHN KERRY-- I'D TAKE KERRY ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. AND ERIC MASSA IS LIKE 100 TIMES MORE THE MAN THAN HAROLD FORD

An organization I'm affiliated with endorsed Harold Ford for the U.S. Senate a few days after Harold Ford felt the need to butt into the Connecticut senate race on behalf of fellow reactionary/corporate whore Joe Lieberman. I groused. But what are you gonna do? We have to take the Senate, right? We need Harry Reid as the Majority Leader instead of that crazed right-wing closet case from Kentucky, true? So I groused. I groused that my organization had endorsed an opportunistic, power-hungry self-aggrandizing prick, one of the only Democrats to have been rated an F in the DMI survey of how House votes impact the lives of the middle class. And I groused when I thought back about Harold Ford, very Lieberman-like, always looks to score points for himself at the expense of fellow Democrats and, more important, at the expense of basic Democratic ideals and values. Yeah, but he's better than Corker, right. Yeah, yeah.

Although... someone who votes to abolish habeus corpus and to allow George W. Bush, proven fascist scum, to determine who will and will not be tortured with no judicial review whatsoever... I mean Corker, schmorker. Could I ever vote for Harold Ford. I don't think so. And then my organization started raising money for him.

That made me ill. I moved from grousing and blogging to kvetching. I spoke to some of the other Board members and to the staff, especially after Ford figured out another way to throw a group of fragile, victimized Democrats under the bus by out-homophobing Corker about the New Jersey Supreme Court decision on civil unions. "I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there's a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage-- I am voting for it."

Ain't he tough! I don't live in Tennessee so there's nothing I could do about it. Well, there was one tiny thing. I helped spark a discussion among Board members and staff if we should really be raising money for so loathsome a character as Harold Ford. One person, a former congressman-- a week after the decision was made-- came to his defense on personal grounds and insisted that Ford was a swell fella. The former congressman is a swell fella so I'll have to take his word for it, although the decision, as I said, had already been made. Harold Ford was kicked off the fundraising page. Although in the end the decision was unanimous, there was some spirited defense of keeping Ford on the list based on the "better-than-Corker" argument and "Harry-Reid-For-Majority-Leader" argument. I suggested we concentrate money-raising on equally necessary candidates who we had at least a chance of not feeling ashamed of ourself for helping to elect, like Jim Webb and Claire McCaskill.

I just took a look-see and I noticed they've added a few more worthy candidates than Ford, some who I think are perfect, like Angie Paccione, Victoria Wulsin, Bruce Braley, Mary Jo Kilroy and Jerry McNerney, and some who I feel are decent Democrats who could prove themselves to be great congressmembers, like Tammy Duckworth, Dan Seals and Harry Mitchell.

I didn't write about the Kerry slip-o-the-tongue brouhaha yesterday. It was all over TV today, the GOP talking point being repeated ad naseum: did John Kerry hand the Republicans the gift they've been waiting for? Of course he hasn't, but Bush and Rove and Santorum and the rest will do their worst to try to turn it into something, all the while reminding voters of Bush's hated war in Iraq. Are people still listening to Bush and Rove and Santorum? I don't think so.

But what about Harold Ford? Are people listening to him? He's not even elected yet and he's already showing himself a willing and eager part of Team Bush. Sounding very Liebermanlike, Ford announced that "Whatever the intent, Senator Kerry was wrong to say what he said. He needs to apologize to our troops."

Republican-inspired media members will be breathlessly asking Democratic candidates to repudiate Kerry. The way to answer is not Harold Ford's way. The way to answer is by stating that they wholeheartedly agree with Senator Kerry's statement that it was stupid for Bush to get us stuck in a quagmire in Iraq." Anything other than that is playing into Karl Rove's gaping jaws.

A real Democrat and a winner handles this the way Eric Massa just did in responding to Karl Rove's Randy Kuhl's demands that he denounce John Kerry. Read what Massa had to say:

Congressional candidate and 24-year Navy veteran Eric Massa today responded to the current flap over Senator John Kerry’s remarks about the war in Iraq, and to a request from his opponent, incumbent Randy Kuhl. The Kuhl campaign this morning called on Massa to disavow Kerry’s remarks, and to return any money donated from Kerry’s Political Action Committee.
 
Massa said, "Randy Kuhl's so-called challenge is nonsense. Our fighting men and women in Iraq are the finest force in the world, but they’re stuck with weak and dishonest civilian leadership. Randy Kuhl has done nothing to support the troops, and just toes the Washington line about 'staying the course.'  General John Batiste characterized Kuhl and his position as 'uninformed' and 'lacking moral courage.' Enough said."
 
Massa added, "George Bush and John Kerry and Randy Kuhl have had their chance and failed to bring home either victory or the troops. It's time for a change down in Washington, and change is coming on Tuesday."
 
Massa’s campaign manager, Mike Nolan, also attacked Kuhl’s request about the Kerry money.  “You have to give Randy Kuhl points for audacity," he said. "For a guy who’s taken thousands of dollars from pharmaceutical companies and Wall Street firms and sponsored a bill to privatize social security, he has some nerve talking about money. Kuhl took $20,000 from Tom Delay and then cast the deciding vote on CAFTA, which exported American jobs. Then Kuhl refused to return the dirty money, even after Delay was indicted. If Randy Kuhl gives back the tainted money from Delay, or from Tom Reynold’s NRCC, or from the big drug companies, then we can talk. Until then, this so-called challenge is actually kind of sad."

UPDATE: JOHN AND JANE

My friend Jane pointed out that another great answer to Republican media hacks and propagandists pushing the Rove line on Kerry's gaffe would be: "John Kerry's inability to tell a proper joke should probably disqualify him from all future appearances on Comedy Central. But I'm glad you brought up the subject of Iraq...." And then John over at Crooks and Liars sent me a video that goes in a very similar direction. Think about it:




UPDATE: MATT STOLLER GETS THE LAST WORD

Matt over at MyDD is eloquent in explaining what makes men like Eric Massa, Charlie Brown and Jim Webb real men and why the George Bushes and Harold Fords of the world are weak, simpering pussies unworthy of trust or support.

TWO CHOICES FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: HOWARD DEAN GOES WITH THE FUTURE; HAROLD FORD, THE PAST

Yesterday Howard Dean did the smart thing and picked Denver as the site of the 2008 Democratic Party Convention. "I am delighted to announce that the city of Denver will host the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I congratulate Mayor Hickenlooper, Governor Ritter, Senator Salzar and the members of the Denver Host Committee for assembling an outstanding bid that demonstrates the community's commitment to organizing a first-rate national convention that will put our nominee on the path to victory in 2008. There is no question," said DNC Chairman Dean, "that the West is important to the future of the Democratic Party. The recent Democratic gains in the West exemplify the principle that when we show up and ask for people's votes and talk about what we stand for, we can win in any part of the country.
Additionally, we have a number of strong Democratic leaders in the West who will be a part of showcasing the vision of Democratic leadership for America as we introduce the next Democratic President in the Rocky Mountains."

Way on the other end of the Democratic spectrum-- where Republicans disguised as "Democrats" lurk in the weeds-- the DLC, which had earlier tried to have the wildly popular Dean replaced with reactionary loser Harold Ford, had to face up to the fact that their own chairman, Tom Vilsack, could no longer support their Republican-leaning policies, neither foreign nor domestic. Vilsack told them he wanted out and that From and Reed had better find some new patsy. Who better worse than... Ford?

Ford is a right-of-center Democrat, with a record of bad political instincts and corruption-- all the right qualities to shill for the pro-corporate, anti-worker/anti-consumer DLC. He's the next Joe Lieberman. You might not remember when Ford challenged Nancy Pelosi for the position of House minority leader, the position that led to the speakership. That campaign, even more than his abysmal voting record, shows exactly why the DLC losers were attracted to him:

The Tennessee Democrat was not as coy about his criticism of Pelosi, calling her "a throwback" and characterizing her style as one of "destructive opposition. We need leadership that is constructive, and not destructive and obstructive," he said. Ford sounded a bit like Ross Perot in 1992 Friday, touting his candidacy as the true avatar of change. He offered himself as "something new and different," a break with "the same old ways of the past," without delving into specific ways in which his leadership would be different than Pelosi's.

"My caucus needs change, and I don't think Nancy Pelosi represents change," Ford said.

Ford's harsh words could be the script for Republican attack ads against Pelosi if she defeats her upstart challenger....

[Ford] says the struggle for the ideological soul of the Democratic Party will be played out in his race against Pelosi. "I don't think Nancy Pelosi's kind of politics is what's needed right now," he said. "Nancy's message, and the course she wants to take us on is not where America wants to go."

Just like a horse and buggy: Harold Ford and the DLC.


UPDATE: WHY DID VILSACK REALLY QUIT THE REACTIONARY DLC?

Radar, which broke the story originally, has their own update going into the reasons why Harold Ford is taking over as head of the DLC. "Announcing his resignation, Vilsack was careful to position it as a natural consequence of his decision to run for president in 2008. 'As a candidate for president, I am responsible for articulating my views about the future of our country and the importance of having the courage to create change in America,' he said in a statement. 'Harold Ford has earned his reputation as a persuasive advocate for the Democratic Party and will do a great job as chairman of the DLC.' But while Vilsack's statement cited 'the precedent established by former DLC Chair Bill Clinton,' who resigned in advance of his 1992 White House bid, a Washington source says there was an additional factor in his departure: the widening rift between Vilsack and DLC's permanent leadership over what to do about the crisis in Iraq."

The DLC's reactionary, pro-corporate head honchos, Al From and Will Marshall, widely distrusted by Democrats outside the Beltway, represent the minuscule Lieberman faction of the Democratic Party and are calling for escalation in Iraq and an expanded war. These two have as much to do with the Democratic Party's values and principles as Vidkun Quisling had to do with Norway's struggle against Nazi domination. Like Bush and McCain and Lieberman, From and Marshall (and presumably Ford) want to escalate the war in Iraq, while Vilsack has been forthright in his belief in ending it... asap. There's no doubt From and Marshall will be a lot happier with Ford-- and Vilsack will be a lot happier with Democrats.

When Will Ford's Political Opportunism Be Framed By A Reminder Of GOP Claims That He Was Only So Homophobic To Cover Up His Own Tendencies?

My favorite tweets this morning were the above from New York radio host Mike Signorile concerning reactionary Tennessee Democrat Harold Ford's lust for political office. This morning's Murdoch-owned NY Post announced that Ford, a career-long vicious homophobe, now supports-- not forced "cures," but... gay marriage. Earlier today a conservative DWT reader, DocWeasel, commented, weasel-like, that "Not only did Dems NOT free the slaves, they opposed '60s Civil Rights reform in much larger percentages than Republicans. If not for Republican votes, Civil Rights reforms under LBJ would not have passed." As I responded, he's correct. This has been a battle between progressives and conservatives, not between the shifting corporate parties. I remember as a school boy how there were so many southern Democrats fighting their party when it came to Civil Rights in the '60s. All that southern Democratic racist scum-- almost every single one of them-- joined the GOP, from Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm, and Jesse Helms to Richard Shelby and Sonny Perdue. Parker Griffith is the latest of the breed. Their departure helped solidify the progressive nature of today's Democratic Party and the embrace they got from Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes absolutely defined the GOP as the party of racism, bigotry and hard core, unchallengable conservatism, a trend that began taking root in the 1920s. When conservative Democrats started abandoning the Democratic Party, they left Harold Ford, Jr. behind. African-American conservatives were not welcome. So he worked against progressive values inside the House Democratic caucus (and as a commentator on Fox and other right-wing TV programs), making common cause with the GOP on issue after issue. Take a look:



And here's Ford expressing outrage in a 2006 campaign ad that the Republicans had accused him of being pro-gay:



Today's Post reports that it's "another sign of his interest in running against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in this year's Democratic primary, [that] ex-Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford Jr. publicly said for the first time that he was in favor of same-sex marriage."

"He supports gay marriage, in the interest of fairness and equality," Ford spokesman Davidson Goldin told The Post.
Ford backed up that statement himself this morning on the "Today Show."
Host Matt Lauer asked, "So you're now in favor of same sex marriage?"

"Civil unions and same-sex marriage, yes," Ford said.

When Ford was still in the House, he was one of only 36 Democrats to vote for the blatantly homophobic Federal Marriage Amendment. The bill failed, 27 Republicans refusing to go along with the homophobia that so enchanted Ford and so many Blue Dogs. Among the Democrats who joined Ford in crossing the aisle that Sept 30, 2004 day were many of the Democrats who have been crossing the aisle to wreck President Obama's agenda for change this year: Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR), Allen Boyd (Blue Dog-FL), Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (Blue Dog-SD), Colin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Lincoln Davis (Blue Dog-TN), etc.

During his failed 2006 Senate campaign, Ford, now the president of the reactionary DLC, Ford thought it appropriate to jump into the New Jersey judicial ruling that favored same sex marriage. For no reason at all other than ugly politics, Ford issued a statement denouncing the New Jersey judges. On July 19 of that year he proudly voted for a constitutional amendment to forever ban same sex marriage. Only the 34 most viciously, hysterically anti-gay Democrats (including Ford) voted for it. It failed 236-187, largely because 27 Republicans deserted their party to vote with the Democrats.

It also should be noted that Ford's reactionary credentials-- and hypocrisy-- are not just centered on his homophobia. He's been an anti-Choice fanatic for his entire political career... and, as you can see from the video below, proud of it:



The retweet from Blogdiva goes right to the point of Ford's impending candidacy. It's all about the benjamins. The millionaire fundraisers who are encouraging Ford to run-- who all talk among each other but with no one else in the real world-- like the idea of Democrats who vote like Republicans. That's why they financially support the DLC, the corporately-oriented Insiders that Ford heads. Yesterday's NY Times emphasized the difficulties Gillibrand is facing because of the big money backers behind Ford. Ellen Malcolm, president of Emily’s List, takes the point that Ford's race is of great service to conservatives because progressives can "ill afford an expensive primary fight," which would be of great benefit to whichever rightist the GOP eventually vomits up to run against Gillibrand. Meanwhile, don't put it past "Fancy Ford" to dig up the old Republican accusations that he was so hysterically anti-gay to cover up his own bisexual tendencies. Now, he's liable to start floating them and whispering that he really is!

Harold Ford Jr. And Mario Procaccino-- Conservative Democrats Among Life's Losers

Do all conservatives have black hearts?

Harold Ford and I have something in common. Neither of us pays taxes in New York, although I used to (when I lived there); he never did-- and he lives there now. I pay my taxes in California, where the top bracket rate is 10.55%. The top rate in New York is 8.97%, so I'm not exactly saving any money by paying taxes here. Ford, on the other hand, saves quite a bit by filing in Tennessee, where the rate is only 6%. He's being squirrely about how much he actually makes as Vice-Chairman of Merrill Lynch (he refuses to divulge how much his tax-payer-funded bonuses were). But his base pay was a million dollars so... state tax in Tennessee was $60,000, instead of the $89,700 he would have paid in NYC (not counting the bonus which is rumored to be far more than a million dollars). Ford has been lying to the public about everything, so it should have surprised no one to learn his lies about paying taxes in New York were just that.

If you're wondering how a homophobic, anti-Choice, conservative loser from Tennessee wound up in New York Democratic politics... well, Wall Street has always loved him and they singled him out for special treatment long ago-- just the way they did with virulently pro-Wall Street patsies Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Castle (R-DE), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Rick Lazio (R-NY) and Paul Ryan (R-WI). They've lavished millions of dollars on each of them, helping them build political power in the hopes, that one day they will be in a position to influence policies that make Wall Street even more powerful than it already is.

In the history of the House of Representatives, the only non-Senators who have gotten more in legal contributions from the Finance Sector than Ford ($3,682,599) were Rick Lazio ($6,424,123), who, like Ford and Emanuel, used the Wall Street revolving door to personally enrich himself; Minority Leader Dick Gephardt ($5,094,782); Ways & Means Chairman Charlie Rangel ($4,602,317); and ex-Chairman of the Banking Oversight Committee and notorious inside trader Spencer Bachus ($4,107,424). Yes, even more than they've given to their most dependable puppets like Eric Cantor, Denny Hastert, Paul Kanjorski, John Boehner, Pete Sessions, Paul Ryan and Jeb Hensarling!

Ford had, by then, settled down in New York with his new wife, Emily Threlkeld, a fashion industry executive whose stepfather, Anson Beard, is a legendary Wall Street figure. And around that same time, with Hillary Clinton running for president and an open seat in his adopted hometown likely to open up, people around Ford began pondering an audacious New York run.

Back in 2008, Threlkeld mentioned to a friend that Ford was considering making the race, the friend said. Gov. David Paterson’s choice of Gillibrand, a little-known upstate congressman, to fill Clinton’s seat after she resigned to become secretary of state, fueled the interest.

Ford started hearing about it at cocktail parties: Influential figures like fundraisers Steve Rattner and Maureen White, who had long had a rocky relationship with Gillibrand, were urging him to run. He seemed, said one member of that scene who talked to him about the Senate, like he was “bored” with his banking job and ready for a new challenge.

Ford fills the sort of hazy role at Merrill traditionally occupied by political stars at New York investment firms. They’re rainmakers and image buffers, there to impress clients, make connections and put a politic foot forward in public settings.

But Ford arrived at the tail of the boom and stayed at Merrill through its absorption by Bank of America and through a controversial round of bonuses at the end of 2008. His spokesman, Davidson Goldin, declined to say whether he’d received one, but New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has requested information on the bonuses from the bank, which received federal support to weather the crisis.

What brought Ford to mind this weekend wasn't his appearance on Meet The Press but some research into another extremely conservative high-profile New York politician-- but from my childhood. In high school, Ken and I used to love making fun of a clueless Bronx political hack, Judge Mario Procaccino, who ran what journalist Richard Reeves termed "the worst political campaign in American history." At one point it looked like his mean-spirited conservatism would beat out Mayor John Lindsay's liberal Republicanism, but Procaccino was so inept that he actually addressed (uncomfortably) an African-American gathering and assured them that "My heart is as black as yours." Probably just as black as Harold Ford's, but Ford was just born a few months after Procaccino sealed his fate and got dumped onto the rubbish pile of history.

Procaccino died in 1995, long forgotten by the world of politics (outside Ken and me), but he left behind one tiny little bit of trivia as his political legacy, and this legacy is what-- even more than their shared conservatism-- is what ties him to Harold Ford. Procaccino invented the term "limousine liberal" in his campaign against Lindsay. Unless you want to call Ford a "helicopter conservative," much of what the judge had to say about Lindsay well describes Ford. His tirade against Lindsay was that his supporters were the types who "live in penthouses and who send their children to private schools and who have doormen and who don't ride the subways." (Let me assure you that neither Ken nor I had ever been in a penthouse. Nor did we know anyone who went to private school-- except for some Italians in the neighborhood who went to parochial school-- nor did either of us have a doorman. And when we could scrounge up the 15 cents for a token, we loved to ride the subway.) Like the vast majority of people who live in a world of limousines and penthouses and doormen, Ford is a conservative, and, like most of them, a tax cheat.

UPDATE: Sales Tax

Ford defenders lamely posit he wasn't lying when he claimed that he pays taxes in New York because he does pay sales taxes! Does that mean some Chinese Communist functionary stationed in NY, the way Ford is, who buys melamine-free milk at the corner grocery and pays sales tax is also entitled to run for the Senate seat? Or how about the 45 million tourists who visit New York annually and buy something and pay sales tax? Are they all entitled to run for the U.S. Senate?

HOW TO RECOGNIZE A PUFF PIECE-- CHRIS CILLIZZA ON HAROLD FORD, JR.

I started reading Cillizza's Washington Post piece on Harold Ford, Jr. this morning with an open mind. (Why, you ask? Hey, it's always important to know what corrupt and opportunistic careerist pols like Ford are up to in their never-ending battle to wreck the values and principles of the Democratic Party.) Anyway, it only took 3 paragraphs, short ones, before I saw that Cillizza, had been employed to write a hyped-up puff piece on Ford. It's sickening; doesn't the Post pay Cillizza enough so that he doesn't have to freelance for the DLC?


In touting the magnificence of Ford's new job as DLC frontman, he talks about Ford following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton (rather than the quintessential DLC Chairman, Joe Lieberman, someone Cillizza has always done so much to support). He refers to the shameful and irrelevant job at the much-despised DLC as a "lofty platform." (I guess it could be looked at as "lofty" in an aloof, disconnected sort of way, totally out of touch with everyday Americans, but I doubt that's what Cillizza had in mind.)

And he refers to Ford's 50,000 vote loss to right wing Republican Bob Corker in November as "closer-than-expected" instead of pointing out that Ford's consistent pandering to the right made him the only loser among Democrats with targeted races. To Cillizza, Ford had nearly pulled off "a stunning upset" by focusing on the future instead of the past-- which I'm sure has great meaning in Cillizza's and his paymasters' minds-- instead of mentioning that Ford lost while Democratic challengers with races every bit as tough-- like Jim Webb, John Tester, Claire McCaskill, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown-- won by not confusing voters as to who was the bigger right wing asshole.


It was the third paragraph that inspired me to write a piece about the anatomy of a puff piece. "At first glance Ford and the DLC appear to be a perfect fit. First elected in 1996 to a House seat his father formerly held for more than two decades, the younger Ford has been forced to beat back the idea that he is a lightweight on issues. His seat atop the DLC should considerably strengthen his heft on domestic and foreign policy matters." Cillizza follows that with a string of positive adjectives and then a quote from thoroughly discredited Beltway hack, Al From, about how the washed up Ford is part of "a new generation" of Democratic leaders.

I kept reading to see who Cillizza would dig up to present the other side of the picture-- about how Ford and the DLC are corporate tools who always sell out the interests of working men and women to whore for political dollars from Big Business. Maybe that got edited out of Cillizza's piece. I doubt it. Oh wait! Maybe this is the other side of the story, fair and balanced bit: "While the DLC has drawn considerable criticism from the liberal blogosphere for advocating so-called Republican lite policies, Ford insisted that the organization is miscast by its Democratic detractors." Does the DLC write that for Cillizza word for word or is his being so in sync with them that they know they don't have to?

And in backing Bush's Iraq plans, Ford uses the old DLC Lieberman strategy of painting mainstream Americans and mainstream Democrats as fringe: "Democrats aren't going to win if we are perceived as the anti-war or anti-national security party." What the DLC, Ford and Chris Cillizza seem to have forgotten is that Harold Ford lost and that real Democrats who challenged Bush for real won. I think the Post needs to re-examine who they have writing about politics for them.

AL WYNN IS BACK-- AND HE'S THROWN IN HIS LOT WITH CORPORATE WHORE HAROLD FORD

Last year one of Blue America's most beloved candidate's was the brilliant and beautiful Donna Edwards in Maryland's 4th CD, who challenged entrenched and reactionary incumbent Al Wynn, the House's version of Joe Lieberman. Donna won last time but Wynn's corrupt machine was able to steal it with tampered ballot boxes. When he went back to Congress he was welcomed by reactionaries and corporate lobbyists. Wynn got together with his Republican buddies at the Energy and Commerce Committee and laughed and joked about how he was able to steal the election.

This week Wynn kicked off his re-election campaign, knowing full well he will have to face a now much better known Donna Edwards on February 12. (In Maryland's 4th CD, the winner of the Democratic primary is a sure winner; it's one of the bluest districts in the U.S.-- and it deserves a congressmember who represents Democratic values and principles, not the disgraceful bucket of slime they have now.)


The CBC Monitor has been watching Wynn's record-- and all members of the Congressional Black Caucus-- and his ratings have been an absolute disgrace. He is a pawn of corporate interests and, even though he was frightened enough by Donna's challenge to try to clean up his act, he's still one of the least progressive members of Congress with an overall score of D+ (up from an F).

The guest of honor at Wynn's fundraiser, however was right at the bottom of the barrel, the CBC member with the lowest score of all (F-- but an even lower F than William Jefferson, the only other member with an F), the recently defeated Harold Ford, currently the chair of the corrupt, reactionary DLC.

There was a bit of buzz at the event, however, about Wynn's selection of a keynote speaker for the event--former representative and candidate for Senate Harold E. Ford, who is now head of the Democratic Leadership Council. Edwards' campaign has been built on attacking Wynn from the left, especially because he voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2003. Ford, meanwhile, is widely seen as a fairly conservative Democrat.

"He's not representative of the district--I don't think he represents the Democratic party," said Del. Victor R. Ramirez (D-Prince George's). "I don't see how it helps [Wynn]."

"I was a little disappointed in Mr. Ford's comments on Iraq," said Del. Doyle L. Niemann (D-Prince George's). "I thought they were not necessarily representative of where Al Wynn stands."

But it is exactly where Wynn stands. Like Ford, Wynn is part of the Cheney wing of the Democratic Party. They are two shameful corporate whores who cater to Big Business interests and leave workers and consumers high, dry and on their own.

DWT contacted Donna today. She'll be kicking off her campaign on June 30. This is what she told us on the phone:

Today, Al Wynn aligned himself with the Republican wing of the Democratic party when former Representative Harold Ford came into our district. The people of the 4th congressional district believed from the beginning that the war was wrong and that we should bring our troops home today, not tomorrow.

Al Wynn and Harold Ford are wrong; nuclear power is not a solution to our energy challenges in the 21st Century. It creates waste, endangers health and leaves the taxpayers holding the bag. His support of the nuclear industry is no surprise, given that Al Wynn has received substantial contributions from the nuclear industry. 

It is not business OR workers, it's time for Wynn to recognize that workers are the bedrock of our economic success and business cannot survive without them.

Like the sound of that? Donna will be a live guest for a Blue America session on Saturday, July 7 at Firedoglake. You don't have to wait to contribute to her campaign; I didn't. I've never met anyone who would be a better member of Congress.

IF YOU LIVED IN TENNESSEE, WOULD YOU VOTE FOR HAROLD FORD? THANK GOD I DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION!

Last week a friend and ally asked me for some help with fundraising for his progressive Democratic organization. He had a great idea and I was extremely excited. But when I looked to see exactly who the fundraising would benefit I was sickened. First on his list: fake Democrat Harold Ford of Tennessee, someone I would have trouble even voting for, let alone giving a dime to! But what about making Harry Reid Majority Leader and what about all the committee chairs? Yes, that's where the trouble part comes in. If not for those factors I would never in a million years even consider voting for reactionary assholes like Ford (or either Nelson or Landreiu or... well, of course, there's Lieberman in his own category of treachery).

Like any other corrupt corporate whore-- regardless of partisan affiliation-- Ford voted for Bush's Big Business-oriented bankruptcy bill. And he voted to abolish habeus corpus in America and in favor of allowing Bush to torture anyone he likes. That's what I'm supposed to raise money for? The traitorous congressmen who voted to abolish habeus corpus should face treason trials someday-- along with Bush and Cheney. But today I should vote to give them more power?

After yesterday's New Jersey Supreme Court decision Ford made the following statement:

"I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there's a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage - I am voting for it."

Today he ran to a right wing radio host to repeat his anti-gay bigotry over and over again. Screw Harold Ford! If we want a grandstanding demagogue and bigot who is willing to trample on the rights of others, we have Corker. Maybe I'd get in the voting booth and hold my nose and weep a little and gnash my teeth and vote against an overtly rubber stamp U.S. Senate (and in favor of a slightly less rubber stamp Senate) and pull the lever for Ford... maybe. But pay for the privilege? Not a chance. Not a dime for Harold Ford.

And voting for this asshole moves the Democratic Party inexorably towards the reactionary values of the Republicans we're trying to get away from. "But he's a fighter," is what you hear from Democrats. True, he's a slimy opportunist with an outsized sense of entitlement (first African American president ambition) who fights... for himself. He's a Democrat by chance, not because the Democratic Party particularly stands for something. At this point, the reasons to hope he wins and the reasons to hope he loses are about in balance.


UPDATE: TWO COMMENTS AS TO THE PLACE OF TENNESSEEANS ON THE EVOLUTIONARY SCALE

Almost simultaneously I just got two e-mails; one was to approve the comment from Rick on this piece (please read it) and the other was from my friend Christy pointing out a piece by Attytood called "Can 6 million Tennesseans Be This Backwards? (No)."

Obviously I feel the same pain that Rick does about political compromise, particularly one this "stinky." Will Bunch has had the time to drink a cup of coffee and think it over some. As usual, his insights are worth considering. And, like myself, he comes to a harsh conclusion: "It's just too bad there's no lever in this race for "'none of the above.'"

Harold Ford Would Be Even Worse For New York Than An Actual Republican

Saturday's my birthday. I was born in New York City but I've now lived in California longer than I did in New York. Doesn't matter; I'll always been from NY. When I was 21 I spent a winter in a tiny hamlet in the Hindu Kush where no one spoke Farsi, let alone English. In fact no one had ever heard of the United States or experienced electricity. When I got back to Kabul in the spring my friends all noticed that my Brooklyn accent was as strong as ever-- although my Pashto was almost passable. I don't remember 10 words of Pashto (or Farsi/Dari) but my Brooklyn accent... I could still be living on East 17th Street between O and P, around the corner from Dubrow's or in Atlantic Towers on Homecrest Avenue just beyond Avenue Z. There's about as much a chance that someone would mistake me from an Afghan as for a Californian.

Soon after I first got to San Francisco a Sufi connection from the meditation center I worked at in Amsterdam got me a job at a p.r. firm off Union Square. One day I picked up the phone and there was a distressed, actually hysterical, woman on the line, a friend, she said, of my boss, and she was threatening to jump out of a window. I went into red alert mode and interrupted my boss, who calmly told me to put her on hold and get back to work. How inhuman, I thought. I went back to the damsel in distress and talked her off the ledge-- a proverbial one, it turned out, more or less. It was the beginning of a close friendship, which ended a few years ago when she was brutally murdered. Her father had been a notorious Mafia don; he had been brutally murdered too-- before I met her. He left her a lot of money; she was my first wealthy friend. I used to stay at her mansion in Pacific Heights and when I went to New York City I stayed in her snazzy apartment on Sutton Place, a part of New York I had heard of but never been too. It wasn't for people from Brooklyn.

Sutton Place gave me the creeps. It didn't smell like the NYC I knew. It smelled... like money; it smelled Republican. Oh, yes, there are Republicans in NYC. I once read a report on George W. Bush political donations by zip code. The biggest donor zip codes for his campaign where from Manhattan-- Sutton Place included. The Republicans in NYC hardly run for office anymore-- or if they do, it's as part of a freakshow like Giuliani or Bloomberg. If you hear about a Republican elected official in NYC, it's probably someone from Staten Island or maybe a sociopath from Queens. But the big Republican money in New York City doesn't go to waste. It goes to the state-- well that has been a waste-- and national parties and their candidates. But it also goes towards making the Democratic Party more.... well, more Republican.

It's not a coincidence that much of the power inside the Democratic Establishment is conservative power-- especially when it comes to financial matters. Wall Street wealth searches out amenable (i.e., easily corruptible if not ideologically predisposed) Democrats to nurture. That is certainly why Rahm Emanuel wound up in the House leadership after one term and why he's now the White House Chief-of-Staff. And it also goes a long way towards explaining Harold Ford's bid for a New York Senate seat.

Ford's Memphis House seat was part of the family business he inherited from his father, Harold Ford, Sr. The family's political shenanigans are a caricature of the kind of political corruption that preys on inner city populations. In the House Ford was the most conservative Democrat representing a major urban area in the country. And one of the most corrupt. To this day, when you look up who the Financial Sector has most favored, Harold Ford, Jr is still up near the top. In the entire history of the U.S. House of Representatives the only congressional criminals who have managed to rake in more than the $3,682,599 Big Finance gave Ford, are senators plus 4 members of the House expressly working on Wall Street-- ex-Chairman of the House Banking Subcommittee on Housing Rick Lazio, who went on to "work" as an executive vice president of JPMorgan Chase (R-NY- $6,424,123), ex-Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO- $5,094,782), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel ($4,602,317) and Ranking Republican on the House Financial Services Committee (and notorious insider-stock trader), Spencer Bachus (R-AL- $4,107,424. That's right, Big Finance has given more to their boy Ford than they have to their biggest and most corrupt GOP bets, Eric Cantor ($3,677,585), John Boehner ($3,369,029), Roy Blunt ($3,080,155), Pete Sessions ($2,929,240), Mark Kirk ($2,879,320), Bill McCollum ($2,722,300), Mike Castle ($2,684,612), Jeb Hensarling ($2,440,100), Tom DeLay ($2,261,566), David Dreier ($2,199,788) and Paul Ryan ($1,726,095).

Earlier today Maureen Dowd did a Times column about Ford's possible run in New York. She termed him "the darling of what he calls the 'Manhattan social philanthropic crowd.'” Not what you would have found around Dubrow's or Sheepshead Bay or at James Madison High School, where Ken and I were students, along with Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and, a few years earlier, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She describes Ford as a "Merrill Lynch rainmaker," a nice way of saying he used his influence to suck taxpayer dollars from our pockets and put it into the pockets of Wall Street fatcats-- like himself. He's currently a Vice-Chairman of Bank of America in charge of stealing taxpayer money.

[H]e gets pedicures and has breakfast at the Regency on Park Avenue (where Rielle Hunter famously picked up John Edwards by calling him “so hot”). He often gets chauffeured by MSNBC to his gigs on Morning Joe and has flown to the boroughs in a helicopter... There are top Democrats who find Ford too slick. “He could sell a snowball in a blizzard,” said one... Being a Wall Street bonus baby is not a plus. “I’m not running from the fact that I worked at a bank and brought in clients,” he said. “Am I proud of everything that went on? Of course not.”

He didn't give back the millions of dollars he's pocketed though-- so I guess he isn't that not proud. Ford is the living, breathing definition of the words "self-serving" and "sleazy," a stereotype of the very worst politics can throw up.

In 2006 the Blue America PAC enthusiastically endorsed Kirsten Gillibrand for her first-- and successful-- run for Congress. One fourth of all the money she raised online came from 584 Blue America donors. We didn't endorse her again in 2008 because she had joined the Blue Dog caucus and I was disappointed when she was appointed to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. That said, she has been a decent senator (with a ProgressivePunch score of 97.90, not quite as good as Sherrod Brown's 99.32 or Sheldon Whitehouse's 98.64, but slightly better than Al Franken's 97.84 and Bernie Sanders' 96.99) and even as a Blue Dog was never a gratuitously conservative a-hole like Ford.

With solid progressive Jonathan Tasini as her only opponent in the primary, Blue America pretty much decided to steer clear of endorsing her-- and even considered endorsing Tasini. But then Wall Street's candidate stepped in and now we're wondering about this race again. Suggestions are welcome.

Should Democrats Be Giving Thanks That Trump May Hire Harold Ford For Something?

Between 1869 and 1970, Tennessee only elected one Republican to the U.S. Senate. That Democratic dominance was flipped on it's head in more recent decades. The last Democrat elected to represent Tennessee in the Senate was Al Gore (1990). Today, every statewide official in Tennessee is a Republican, from the governor on down. The state House has 73 Republicans and 26 Democrats and the state Senate has 28 Republicans and just 5 Democrats. There are 9 congressional seats. Seven of them are so red that Democrats can't even beat a predator doctor with an "R" next to his name who drugs and rapes his female patients (Scott DesJarlais). In most of the districts, when Democrats do run, they don't even get a third of the vote. In 2012 Romney beat Obama 1,453,097 (59%) to 953,043 (39%). Obama won 4 of the state's 95 counties: Davidson (Nashville), Shelby (Memphis), Hayward and Hardeman. Trump did even better than Romney had, taking 1,517,402 votes (61.1%) to Clinton's 867,110 (34.9%). She won only 3 counties, missing Hardeman.

This is one politically-backward blood-red state. But there are 2 deep blue congressional districts, basically Nashville, which is represented by an old school reactionary Blue Dog, Jim Cooper, who's more like a Republican than a national Democrat, and Memphis. The Memphis district, TN-09, is around 65% African-American. A quirk of fate-- and a reaction against decades of brazen political corruption of the city's most prominent Democratic dynasty-- made a liberal Jewish state senator, Steve Cohen, congressman in 2006. He's a living refutation of the DCCC dictum that only identity politics and Republican-lite candidates should determine who runs for office in the South.

Cohen's predecessor was Harold Ford, Jr, who followed his father, Harold Ford, Sr. Their machine is a classic example of big city corruption and was, in fact, built directly onto the foundations of that of notoriously corrupt Democratic power-broker Edward Hull "Boss" Crump, one of the reasons Tennesseans gave up, en masse, on the Democratic Party. Crump had befriended Ford's grandfather and enabled his uncle, state Senator, John Ford, who was indicted on bribery, extortion and witness tampering charges and served 4 years in prison on the bribery charge. Harold Sr. served in Congress for 11 terms but was indicted for bank fraud in the middle of his career and was a bit of a pariah in Congress after that. The father became a lobbyist and his son seamlessly took over the House seat and the political machine.

Ford, who has failed the bar exam and is not licensed to practice law anywhere, was as corrupt as the rest of his family but always manages to worm out of his criminal and ethical troubles.

He joined the Blue Dogs and voted for every bad piece of right-wing legislation that came down the pike-- from enthusiastically backing bills to deregulate banks-- and to pass a predatory bankruptcy bill that was terrible for Memphis residents and, of course, to gut Glass-Steagall-- to Bush's push to invade Iraq. He was an obsessed homophobe, virulently anti-Choice and lectured liberal senators to filibuster Bush;'s far right Supreme Court nominees, who Ford thought were just dandy. His congressional career was notable for never being about his long-suffering constituents and always being about his own sordid career. He railed against progressives and progressive ideas and ran against Pelosi for Democratic leader, losing badly.

The Democratic establishment backed his Senate run in 2006, crippling the efforts of a more progressive state Senator who had a far better chance to win against Bob Corker. After he lost the Senate race he went to work for Fox News as the classic "Fox Democrat" and took a job as a golfed lobbyist and vice-chairman of Merrill-Lynch. Later he became a managing director at another crooked Wall Street firm, Morgan Stanley and became a regular on Morning Joe, playing his role as a make-believe Democrat, and threatening to run for various offices in New York and other northeastern states. He tamped down his ugly homophobia when he decided to run for the U.S. Senate in New York but was soon laughed out of the race.

Ford, more a TV personality than anything remotely useful to anyone but himself, is perfect for Trump. He's friends with Ivanka and Jared Kushner and with trusted Trump crony, Joe Scarborough. Tuesday the NY Times reported that Trump is considering him for Transportation Secretary. he certainly fits in with the criminal elements Trump has surrounded himself with.

Politically, Ford supports Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. His recent contributions have been to right-of-center Dems like Chris Matthews' lobbyist wife, Kathleen, Ro Khanna, Mary Landrieu, Bob Kerrey, Mark Warner, Mark Pryor... all the garbage candidates that have put the Democratic Party into a state of disrepute. The Democrat he was most often compared with when he was in office was Joe Lieberman. We started covering Ford at DWT in 2006-- please, help yourself to an extra serving of turkey.

Do You Love It When Right-Wing Perverts Get Into Sex Trouble? Most Recent Victims: Trent Franks (R) And Harold Ford (Blue Dog)

Note from one of my neighbors-- a prominent movie director-- when the Trent Franks news started breaking yesterday: "Your old buddy must’ve got caught in the men's room with a pecker in his hair lip.

The world is going nuts…"

In Sacramento, when Democratic state legislators are too conservative-- like as bad as the worsts Republicans-- Democrats and their union allies conspire to send them to Washington as congressmen. Two really horrible state legislators-- corrupt beyond normal bounds and as right-wing as a bad Republican-- Juan Vargas and later Lou Correa-- ran for Congress the entire establishment rallied around them. They tried to do the same thing with Isadore Hall but got sideswiped when his constituents were too smart to fall for the ploy and shocked the string corrupt California political class by elected progressive champion Nanette Barragán instead.

But in Arizona, they had a different trick. The Republican-controled state legislature was happy with Trent Franks' extreme right voting record but after he got caught fooling around with a young man, the state Republicans were happy to see him go off to DC as a congressman. He even managed to find some kind of mail order bride and ordered up a couple of insta-kids. He's one of the most loudly and obnoxiously homophobic members of Congress... but a closet case.

So when rumors started circulating Thursday that he was resigning immediately from Congress because of "inappropriate behavior," those who know about his penchant for the male sex organs, started wondering if he was credibly accused of having sexually harassed someone with a penis again. Republicans don't resign because of abusing women-- see Texas pervert Blake Farenthold, happily still in the House-- but they do resign when they get caught with the meat in their mouths (Mark Foley, Aaron Schock stand out lately).

AZCentral.com, part of the Arizona Republic:

Rumors have swirled for years about Franks’ extracurricular activities.

“I heard rumors of these types of problems in the past,” longtime Republican strategist Chuck Coughlin told me. “And in today’s society it doesn’t come as a big surprise anymore.”

Franks was all set to run for the U.S. Senate in 2012 until suddenly, he wasn’t. Multiple people have told me that his after-hours activities caught up to him.

“The information was there to be had, and it was shared with him, so he walked away from the race,” one consultant told me.

Another told me that Franks wrote sexually charged text messages a decade ago to a Republican operative-- texts that never came to light.

  Whatever the reason, Franks' Senate campaign abruptly ended before it began.

...Expect two things:

1. He'll resign citing family health concerns.

Ah... late yesterday afternoon, his statement came out. No reason to believe it's true by here in is in full:

"I have always tried to create a very warm and supportive atmosphere for every last person who has ever worked in my congressional office. It is my deepest conviction that there are many staffers, former and present, who would readily volunteer to substantiate this fact.

"Given the nature of numerous allegations and reports across America in recent weeks, I want to first make one thing completely clear. I have absolutely never physically intimidated, coerced, or had, or attempted to have, any sexual contact with any member of my congressional staff.

"However, I do want to take full and personal responsibility for the ways I have broached a topic that, unbeknownst to me until very recently, made certain individuals uncomfortable. And so, I want to shed light on how those conversations came about.

"My wife and I have long struggled with infertility. We experienced three miscarriages.

"We pursued adoption on more than one occasion only to have the adoptive mothers in each case change their mind prior to giving birth.

"A wonderful and loving lady, to whom we will be forever grateful, acted as a gestational surrogate for our twins and was able to carry them successfully to live birth. The process by which they were conceived was a pro-life approach that did not discard or throw away any embryos.

"My son and daughter are unspeakable gifts of God that have brought us our greatest earthly happiness in the 37 years we have been married.

"When our twins were approximately 3 years old, we made a second attempt with a second surrogate who was also not genetically related to the child. Sadly, that pregnancy also resulted in miscarriage.

"We continued to have a desire to have at least one additional sibling, for which our children had made repeated requests.

"Due to my familiarity and experience with the process of surrogacy, I clearly became insensitive as to how the discussion of such an intensely personal topic might affect others.

"I have recently learned that the Ethics Committee is reviewing an inquiry regarding my discussion of surrogacy with two previous female subordinates, making each feel uncomfortable. I deeply regret that my discussion of this option and process in the workplace caused distress.

"We are in an unusual moment in history – there is collective focus on a very important problem of justice and sexual impropriety. It is so important that we get this right for everyone, especially for victims.

"But in the midst of this current cultural and media climate, I am deeply convinced I would be unable to complete a fair House Ethics investigation before distorted and sensationalized versions of this story would put me, my family, my staff, and my noble colleagues in the House of Representatives through hyperbolized public excoriation. Rather than allow a sensationalized trial by media damage those things I love most, this morning I notified House leadership that I will be leaving Congress as of January 31st, 2018. It is with the greatest sadness, that for the sake of the causes I deeply love, I must now step back from the battle I have spent over three decades fighting. I hope my resignation will remain distinct from the great gains we have made. My time in Congress serving my constituents, America and the Constitution is and will remain one of God’s greatest gift to me in life."

Now let's translate that into something a bit more anchored in reality: The House Ethics Committee is investigating-- or at least was threatening to investigate-- Franks for "conduct that constitutes sexual harassment and/or retaliation for opposing sexual harassment." Even Paul Ryan-- who is still protecting Blake Farenthold, admits that the people complaining about Franks have "credible claims of misconduct."

UPDATE: He sure didn't want that Ethics Committee investigation putting anything out about his sordid, hypocritical life! A few hours ago, Franks once again used the phony relationship with his "wife" to end an awkward situation. After pressure from Ryan and McCarthy,  he issued a new statement saying he won't try to hang around until January 31. He's out immediately; maybe they'll take a river cruise down De Nile:

"Last night, my wife was admitted to the hospital in Washington, D.C. due to an ongoing ailment. After discussing options with my family, we came to the conclusion that the best thing for our family now would be for me to tender my previous resignation effective today, December 8th, 2017."

And in the middle of all this, crooked lobbyist Harold Ford, a former congressman who was always known to be chasing women-- he lost his Senate race because of sexual charges-- got fired by Morgan Stanley for sexual misconduct. The company told HuffPo, which broke the story yesterday that Ford "has been terminated for conduct inconsistent with our values and in violation of our policies." He's also a paid regular on MSNBC's Morning Joe-- always ready to show Democrats can be as conservative as Republicans when it comes to anything fiscal-- and I can't imagine they'll keep him on either.

In two interviews with HuffPost, the woman alleged that Ford engaged in harassment, intimidation, and forcibly grabbed her one evening in Manhattan, leading her to seek aid from a building security guard. The incident took place several years ago when Ford and the woman were supposed to be meeting for professional reasons. Ford continued to contact her after the encounter until she wrote an email asking him to cease contact.

The email, which was reviewed by HuffPost, shows that the woman emailed Ford after he repeatedly asked her to drinks. She asked him not to contact her anymore, citing his inappropriate conduct the evening where he forcibly grabbed and harassed her.

Ford replied to the email by apologizing and agreeing not to contact her. “Hey very sorry. Meant no harm,” the email reads. “And I apologize for whatever I may have said or what was said. And my overtures are strictly professional. Again I apologize didn’t mean to be inappropriate at all. Sorry that impression was left.”

HuffPost is not identifying the woman at her request but has reviewed emails that confirm her interactions with Ford and spoke to two people whom the woman confided in about the incident. One woman heard from Ford’s accuser the night of the incident and described her as “distraught, shocked, and frightened,” and said that she was concerned about any career ramifications should she report the incident.

In a statement provided to HuffPost, Ford denied the allegations: “This simply did not happen. I have never forcibly grabbed any woman or man in my life. Having drinks and dinner for work is part of my job, and all of my outreach to the news reporter making these false allegations was professional and at the direction of my firm for business purposes. I support and have tremendous respect for the brave women now speaking out in this important national dialogue. False claims like this undermine the real silence breakers. I will now be bringing legal action against the reporter who has made these false claims about me as well as Morgan Stanley for improper termination.”

John Singer, Ford’s employment counsel with the firm Singer Deutsch LLP, said “Morgan Stanley has still not told Harold directly of his termination, and unlike every other circumstance I’ve been in the company has refused provide me with a reason.”

He added: “This all demonstrates how this was a matter of convenience during a hyper-sensitive time and not based on real facts.”

Ford comes from a prominent political family in Tennessee. His father, Harold Ford Sr., held a congressional seat for 12 terms before retiring, leaving his son to run for the seat, a race which he won handily. Ford served in the House for nearly 10 years before deciding to run for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Republican Bill Frist. Ford lost that hotly contested 2006 race by fewer than three points to current Republican Sen. Bob Corker.

Since leaving Congress in 2007, Ford has worked for two financial services companies, first for Merrill Lynch and then Morgan Stanley, which he joined in 2011 as a managing director.

At the time Morgan Stanley announced the hire, the New York Times described Ford’s role as a rainmaker of sorts: “Mr. Ford will be responsible for ‘building business opportunities’ for clients, Morgan Stanley said. He will manage relationships with corporate directors, senior executives and institutional investors, as well as private clients.”

WHO YOU CALLIN' A CENTRIST?

Harold Ford burnishes his "moderate" credentials-- loses TN senate seat but wins DLC chair

Nothing gets me crazier than when I'm with a bunch of really smart progressives and they start using the reactionary frame of calling right-wing Democrats like Harold Ford or Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson "moderate." They're not moderate; they're the extreme right-wing of the Democratic Party; well, Lieberman isn't part of the Democratic Party but he was the extreme right of it before Connecticut voters tossed him out. The others, along with many DLC and Blue Dog members, are. In a day and age when members' entire voting record is easily accessible, there is not reason to call someone like Jim Marshall (D-GA) or Chris Carney (D-PA) or Dan Boren (OK), Boyd Allen (FL), Gene Taylor (D-MS), Bud Cramer (AL), John Barrow (D-GA), Heath Shuler (D-NC), Al Wynn (D-MD) or Dan Lipinski (D-IL) a moderate. Well, there is one reason: you accept the radical right's frame of political polarity.

Yesterday George Lakoff went to town on the whole idea with a short piece called No Center, No Centrists. I love the way he began: "'Centrism' is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it." Let me get the shovels, please.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought — call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale.

...American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas-- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care.

The progressive view of government is simple. Progressive government has two aspects: protection and empowerment. Protection is far more than the military, police, and fire departments. It includes consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, public health, food and drug safety; social security, and other safety nets. It also includes protection from the government itself, and hence a balance of powers, openness, fundamental rights, and so on.

Empowerment include roads and bridges; public education; government-developed communications like the internet and satellite communications systems; the banking system; the SEC and institutions that make a stock market possible, and the court system, mostly about contracts and corporate law. Progressive government makes business possible. No one makes any money in this country without the progressive empowerment by government. A progressive foreign policy is not based solely, or even mainly, on the state-- about the "national interest" defined as our military strength and GDP. Progressive foreign policy focuses on individual people's interests as well as national interests: on poverty, disease, refugees, education, women's and children's issues, public health, and so on.

Lakoff explains that using the frame of some kind of phoney-baloney "center," is an attempt to make progressives look like non-mainstream kooks and extremists. Glenn Smith takes the argument further-- and right to the heart of reactionary Democratic politics, the DLC, a corporate interest group deep Inside the Beltway Democratic Establishment. The call themselves "moderate" and "centrists" to marginalize the progressive heart of the Democratic Party to better serve the interests of their corporate (and Republican) paymasters. In their world, Rahm Emanuel, Harold Ford and Joe Lieberman is where it's at; Howard Dean and the grassroots Democratic wing of the Democratic Party are a threat. They don't represent values, only strategies and self-interest. And, as Lakoff reminds us, "Their concentration on laundry lists of policies rather than vision, values, and passion has not helped the Democrats electorally."

The reason the DLC has been attacking progressives, Smith argues, is that DLC members have major conservative values and are threatened by the progressive base. Some of those values are financial: Wall Street, the HMO's and drug companies, agribusiness, developers, the oil companies, and international corporations that benefit from trade agreements, outsourcing, cheap labor abroad, and practices that harm indigenous populations but bring profits. A powerful motivation for the party has been that, if they take such positions, they, like the Republicans, can get big money contributions from Wall Street.

But there is more involved here than money. The DLC seems also to share the foreign policy idea that we should be maximizing our "national interest"-- our military strength, economic wealth (measured by GDP), and global political clout (presumably coming from economic and military clout). This is opposed to a foreign policy that maximizes the well-being of people, both at home and abroad.

But worst of all, the DLC has been cowed by the conservatives. They have drunk the conservative Kool-Aid. As Harold Ford intimated in his debate with Markos Moulitsas: To win you have be a hawk on foreign policy, a social conservative on abortion and gay marriage, and not raise taxes. Nonsense.

Even worse, Ford is suggesting that those in the party who don't hold those views say that they do. There's a name for someone who goes against his principles to pander for votes. It's not a nice name.

In all the commentary about that debate, an important aspect has gone without comment. Markos certainly bested Ford. But to do so, he also had to best the moderator, David Gregory, who insisted on using the conservative-tainted word "liberal." Over and over, Markos resisted Gregory's frames. Gregory was not using Markos' frames and Markos insisted on his own.

It is important to stand up to the DLC, and to the idea that there is a unitary mainstream center, that they are it, and that progressives are extremists and deserve to be marginalized.

Bob Fertik of Democrats.com is advocating a practical approach to the fake Dems who try to pass themselves off as "moderates" while supporting Bush Regime extremism: primaries. I agree with his premise and if you check out his chart you'll notice a hint or two of some collaboration between us. He talks about Democrats who routinely betray progressive values and backstab mainstream Democratic policies to support Republicans on crucial issues. And he offers alternatives to these fake Dems-- even beyond Donna Edwards' race to unseat Al Wynn and Mark Pera's race to unseat Dan Lipinski. Check out his site and let him know what you think.


UPDATE: THE POST USES THE FRAME TO DESCRIBE THE ODIOUS MARK PENN AS THE NEW KARL ROVE

Everything I just said-- and, more impoirtant, Lakoff just said-- about the insidious nature of the false "centrist" meme, can be summed up in the first paragraph of a column on campaign strategists in today's Washington Post.

The most obvious heir to a position of Karl Rove-like influence is Mark Penn, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's top political adviser. Penn, the rare pollster who is also the chief strategist of a campaign, reinforces some of what liberals do not like about Clinton: He is a centrist who has pushed the New York Democrat to the middle and advised her not to apologize for her vote to authorize the war in Iraq.

Many actual moderate Democrats have shied away from getting behind Hillary's campaign because of the slimy and unscrupulous nature of the Beltway insiders like Penn she has chosen to surround herself with.