The Essence Of A Closet Case Is The Learned Ability To Lie Without Effort-- Miss McConnell And Neil Gorsuch

Arguably the most hypocritical man to have ever served as Senate Majority Leader in our lifetimes is Kentucky closet queen Mitch ("Miss") McConnell, the architect of the dogged Republican decision to prevent-- for a full year-- the appointment of President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court from being even considered. On the very day Obama announced the nomination of Merrick Garland, DWT's response was one of profound disappointment. But no one around here is a president entitled to make nominations and McConnell's role in blackballing him was reprehensible. Yesterday-- behind a Politico paywall-- he claimed that the fascist-oriented Neil Gorsuch-- a so-called "judge"-- must get an up-or-down vote and that "Democrats are threatening to hold up a qualified Supreme Court nominee for one reason: to hurt Donald Trump."

McConnell claims Gorsuch is celebrated on both sides of the aisle. That's a lie. Gorsuch is widely recognized as a small-minded partisan hack and he is absolutely reviled by progressives. Unlike Merrick Garland, who was a dull moderate, Gorsuch is a vicious far right ideologue (with a fake smile). I think Bernie spoke for most progressives when he said that "It is imperative that a new justice be prepared to defend the rights of all Americans, not just the wealthy and large corporations. Our next Supreme Court justice must vote to protect American democracy and keep campaigns free of the corrupting influence of big money, treat workers fairly, safeguard liberties for women and minorities, protect religious freedom and to safeguard the privacy rights of citizens." He was describinhg the polar opposite of Neil Gorsuch.

McConnell claimed that because everyone was happy to confirm Gorsuch to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, he's fine for the Supreme Court. Somehow the comparison with the admiration conservative Republicans heaped on Merrick Garland was lost on the delusional McConnell. "So why," McConnell lisped, "would Democrats contemplate doing something so radical and out of the mainstream now-- against a superbly qualified judge Democrats didn’t raise objections to before, a man Democrats have praised many times since?" He claims it's "far left groups" who hate Trump. He insists that Senate Democrats "are attempting to paint this nominee as an 'extremist' and are calling for a filibuster before the ink is even dry on his nomination" and repeats the Alt-Fact talking point that "Democrats are having a tough time coming to grips with the election results" and that protesters are "rioting." That isn't rue and that isn't the reason. Gorsuch is the reason. Here's Miss McConnell'shyper-hypocritical case:

I realize that Leader Schumer in particular is under immense pressure from the radical fringes of our politics. But he and his party can’t allow themselves to be led around by the far left.

Senator Schumer recently declared on the Senate floor that he would seek to deny a straight up-or-down vote for Judge Gorsuch because, he claimed, Republicans had “insisted” on similar treatment for President Obama’s nominees.

Only thing is, we hadn’t. The Democratic leader was forced to return to the floor to correct himself. I think we all appreciated Leader Schumer making clear to America that Republicans did not-- not-- insist on supermajority 60-vote thresholds for either of President Obama’s two first-term Supreme Court nominees. We allowed straight up-or-down votes for President Clinton’s nominees too. There’s no reason someone as widely respected on both sides of the aisle like Judge Gorsuch should be treated differently now.

I’ve been consistent all along that the next president-- Democrat or Republican-- should select the next nominee for the Supreme Court. I maintained that view even when many thought that president would be Hillary Clinton. But now the election season is over, and we have a new president who has nominated a superbly qualified candidate to fill that ninth seat.

Democrats now have a choice. They can tear our country apart further, or they can stand up and lead. I invite Leader Schumer and his party, who repeatedly declared how necessary it was to have nine justices on the court, to now follow through on their refrain of “we need nine” by giving this tremendously well-qualified nominee fair consideration and an up-or-down vote.

It's true that Miss McConnell didn't insist on a 60 vote threshold for Garland. There was no need to. He just flat-out declared that the Senate Republicans wouldn't even consider the nomination and would hold no hearings, let alone a vote. McConnell is a practiced liar-- after decades of pretending to be a heterosexual while soliciting sex from young men in Louisville's "Pickle Park." He's brought his alt-facts universe to his duties in the U.S. Senate.

Last night Miss used an archaic 19th Century rule rule to silence Elizabeth Warren and prevent her from reading into the record a letter from Coretta Scott King about Jeff Sessions' utter unsuitability, a rule that was put in place by pro-slavery senators to prevent abolitionists from talking about slavery. These were the ideological forebearers of Mitch McConnell and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III... and so many of today's Republican Party politicians.

The crazy man in Mar-A-Lago seems to have set the tone for the debate on his Supreme Court nominee. Democratic senators are extending him the courtesy of interviews. Jon Tester (D-MT) did it yesterday and said he hadn't made up his mind yet. Schumer met with him today-- far more than Miss McConnell ever did with Garland. Can the senators not question Gorsuch about Trump's recent spate of crackpot tweets undermining the judicial branch? I would think someone will have to ask Gorsuch about impeachment in light of the crazy judicial tweets this weekend.

Is Trump undermining the judiciary for the sake of his drug-addled followers so that when he's eventually, inevitably convicted of something serious they'll be gaslighted enough to back his defiance? Even Pence, speaking on ABC's This Week yesterday, admitted that Judge Robart has the authority to halt Trump's unhinged and unconstitutional Executive Order.

Eventual Gorsuch hearing should be just swell. Aside from the twittery attacks on judges, the senators have to ask him about all the business conflicts, the Pam Bondi bribery case (and the rest of the sordid Trump University saga)... It might even be an opportunity for Trumpanzee supporters to learn something about the way the political system works. But, make no mistake, the hearings will be almost as much about Trumpanzee as they are about Gorsuch, who doesn't appear to be independent enough to stand up to Trump, Pence and Bannon. As the Washington Post pointed out over the weekend, "Gorsuch’s nomination lands at a time when the Supreme Court is likely to be called upon to review what Trump already has shown to be a broad reliance on executive power."

Compromise: Let Pelosi Stay, But No More Of Her Failed DCCC Appointments-- Let The Caucus Vote, Like The Republicans Do!

In 2008, after Obama won his first term, fully 59% of self-identified Republicans wanted their party’s congressional leaders to work with new president to get things done. Instead, a couple of weeks after he was elected but before he was inaugurated, then-House GOP whip Eric Cantor called a secret meeting for a no-honeymoon strategy of all out obstruction. Miss McConnell, then Senate Minority Leader, convened a follow-up 2 weeks later. According to Ohio Senator George Voinovich,"If he was for it, we had to be against it." And that is how McConnell ran the Senate and Boehner and then Ryan ran the House for 8 years. The degree of systematic obstruction on every front is unprecedented, even to the point of Republican members of Congress knowingly causing pain to their own constituents, knowing they would, at least in part, blame Obama.

This year, perhaps in response, just 32% of Democrats, according to a Pew Research survey released yesterday, want their congressional leaders to work with Trump to get things done. The irony is that Republican leaders ignored their voters to sabotage Obama while Democrats-- particularly Trump-crony Chuck Schumer-- are ignoring their voters to cooperate with Trump. "[M]most Democrats would like to see their party’s leaders stand up to Trump rather than work with him. In fact, Democratic support for cooperation with the president-elect today is substantially less than GOP support for working with Obama eight years ago.

Nearly two-thirds of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters (65%) say “Democratic leaders should stand up to Donald Trump on issues that are important to Democratic supporters, even if means less gets done in Washington.” Just 32% want the party’s leaders to work with Trump if it means disappointing Democrats.

In November 2008-- a time when voters generally felt much better about the election and its outcome-- Republicans and Republican leaners were more favorably disposed to their party’s leaders working with Obama. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) said GOP leaders should work with Obama, while 36% wanted them to “stand up” to the new president.

And Democratic voters are now far more supportive of the party moving in a more liberal direction than they were after either the 2012 or 2008 elections. About half of all Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters (49%) say Democratic leaders in Washington should move in a more liberal direction, while nearly as many (47%) favor a more moderate approach. Following Obama’s victories, majorities favored the party’s leaders moving in a more moderate direction (57% in both 2012 and 2008).

A more liberal approach will never happen. Baked into the Democratic leadership cake-- particularly cautious old reactionaries like Chuck Schumer, Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn-- is a virulent anti-progressive/anti-populist streak. As we've shown before, had Schumer not interfered in Democratic primaries on behalf of establishment conservatives and against progressives, he would be about to begin 4 years as Majority Leader instead of 4 years (at least) as Minority Leader.

The Democrats lost at least 2 dozen contests for seats they should have won but lost only one incumbent in the House last week, far right "ex"-Republican Blue Dog Brad Ashford. Ashford was not just worthless garbage, he has the worst voting record-- or most Republican voting record of any so-called Democrat in Congress. He has the lowest crucial vote score of any Democrat in the House, worse than fellow Blue Dog Gwen Graham and worse than Republican Chris Gibson. He lost 134,291 (49.4%) to 128,739 (47.3%); who wants a fake (or even an "ex"-Republican when you can have a full-blown real one? Not enough people to hold seats, something everyone in the world has figured out by now except openers: Nancy Pelosi. Her House Majority PAC and the DCCC wasted $3,553,238 trying to save Ashford's seat. Why? So he could have another 2 years of voting with the Republicans on almost everything? He voted against progressive positions nearly 70% of the time.

House Democrats should make a deal with Pelosi. Let me keep the leadership job if she agrees to relinquish the right to name a DCCC chair. After spectacularly failed chairmen Rahm Emanuel, Chris Van Hollen, Steve Israel and Ben Ray Lujan, isn't it time for Pelosi to step away from that lever of power that hayloft America helpless in the face Trumpism? The House Republicans elect their NRCC chairman. Isn't that novel? Democracy! But Pelosi grasps onto it tenaciously even though there isn't a person alive with two working brain cells they could rub together who would say she's any good at it. Let her stay-- but let the Democratic members elect the next head of the DCCC, preferably someone who won't rehire the same staff that has learned how to lose and lose and lose and lose... and only lose.



UPDATE: Pelosi announced on Monday that she will reform her miserably failed DCCC by allowing congressmembers to elect 5 regional vice-chairs. That's a good first step in the right direction. But the chairman should be elected as well. Why should the House Republicans have a more democratic set up than the House Democrats? Does that make sense to anyone?

Haven't Democrats suffered enough of this crap?

Richard Burr Strengthens The Case For Defeating Every Republican Up And Down The Ticket

Yesterday, speaking to a fringe right-wing radio show, John Cornyn, McConnell's #2 in the Senate said Republicans in Congress will continue "investigating" Clinton if she's elected. GOP dunce Ron Johnson is already talking about impeaching Hillary Clinton. In the last couple of days, North Carolina dim bulb Richard Burr joined Ted Cruz and John McCain saying they would block any Supreme Court nominees from a Democratic president. Yesterday Politico started the day with a report from Rachel Bade about how congressional Republicans are planning to tie government up in endless investigations of trumped up charges against President Hillary Clinton led by hyper-partisan extremists like Jason Chaffetz (UT), Lamar Smith (TX), Michael McCaul (TX), Bob Goodlatte (VA), Jim Jordan (OH), Darrell Issa (CA), Tom Price (GA), Jeb Hensarling (TX), Ed Royce (CA), Pete Sessions (TX) and Kevin Brady (TX).

If the GOP wins either or both chambers of Congress next week, and Clinton takes the White House, she’s likely to come under investigation by Capitol Hill from Day One, or possibly before she’s even sworn in. FBI Director James Comey’s recent decision to revisit the probe of her email setup, and an assortment of Justice sources who’ve leaked to the press since Friday, have armed GOP lawmakers with more than enough ammunition to rev up their own investigations, say Republican sources on Capitol Hill.

The dynamic could sour relations between Clinton and Capitol Hill from the get-go, dousing any hope of even a brief honeymoon for Clinton should she defeat Donald Trump next week.

Disgraced former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who managed to worm his way out of a prison sentence with legalistic technicalities on a series of trials that lasted for many years, is now urging his old comrades in the House to start impeachment proceedings against Hillary the day she's elected.

Burr has made it completely clear to North Carolina voters why he should be denied reelection, even beyond his miserable record. Blue America hasn't endorsed his opponent, Deborah Ross but it is completely clear that Burr is unfit, like Trump, for elected office. Saturday, not knowing he was being taped, he told Republican supporters that he would work to "keep a vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court empty for four years if Hillary Clinton is elected president."

The Saturday conversation is the same one in which Burr joked about whether a photo of Clinton on the cover of American Rifleman, a magazine published by the National Rifle Association, should have a bulls-eye on it. Those remarks have been widely reported and condemned, and Burr apologized Monday.

...[I]n Saturday's meeting in Mooresville, Burr said, "If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that four years from now we've still got an opening on the Supreme Court."

Burr told supporters that an eight-member court would mean some rulings by lower courts like the one Garland sits on would stand as is, "But I think on the things that are important to the country, there's a better chance that the lower court or the appellate court will get the right answer before it gets to the Supreme Court."

Shortly after Scalia died, Burr tweeted, "The American people deserve a say. The Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until there is a new President."

When Obama nominated Garland, Burr issued, a two-sentence statement: "The American people deserve a voice in the nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice. This appointment could easily tip the balance of the court in a direction not supported by the American people as evidenced by 2014's election results giving Republicans both the Senate and the House."

...On Saturday, Burr told supporters it is "not tough for me" to hold a judge's seat open. He cited the fact that a federal judgeship in eastern North Carolina has remained open 10 years, the longest period in history, at his behest.

He said on the recording that the Obama administration had reneged on its promise to support Burr's preferred candidate for a judgeship if Burr backed an Obama candidate. He said Obama had told him in a telephone call that the deal was good only for Obama's first term.

Burr said he responded, "Let me make you a promise. This seat will be vacant on the day you go out of office."

Burr recounted to supporters Saturday seeing a copy of American Rifleman a few days before.

"It's got a picture of Hillary Clinton on the front of it. I was a little bit shocked that it didn't have a bull's-eye on it," he said on the recording.

He apologized Monday afternoon shortly after CNN published the recording: "The comment I made was inappropriate, and I apologize for it."

Ross told The Associated Press the remark was "not befitting a senator."

"I think it's a comment about violence against a candidate for the president of the United States, and they're irresponsible and wrong," Ross said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

Gun-control groups including former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords' group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, called Burr's comments dangerous in a country strained by disputes over gun rights.

Burr's comments normalize an attitude among some gun rights supporters that killing unfriendly politicians could be an option, Brady Campaign President Daniel Gross said Tuesday.

"We take from it a level of violent rhetoric that is dangerous and we need to say is unacceptable," Gross told the AP.

Ross said during a campaign appearance in Charlotte Tuesday that Burr is "putting politics ahead of his duty and ahead of the Constitution. And he's applying for a job by saying he's not going to do his job."

She called Burr's actions to keep the eastern North Carolina judge's job open "a dereliction of duty" and criticized his comment about putting a bulls-eye on Clinton.

"We should be able to have a civil discussion, and a civil society, and a civil election without talking about violence," Ross said. "It is the job of elected leaders and their campaigns to set an example for the next generation."

Rand Paul, who doesn't have a serious challenge to reelection, said in debate a few days ago that he "can’t imagine voting for a Clinton nominee unless she would appoint somebody that actually were someone who believes in the separation of powers as the founders wrote into the Constitution," pretty similar to what Marco Rubio has said.

At this point, it's becoming clearer and clearer that the Republicans themselves, with their own pronouncements, are making it essential for people to put government back on rational footing by defeating every Republican running for office. Yes, it's a shame that so many Democratic candidates aren't worth voting for, but even the worst garbage candidates-- let's even take the worst of all, Patrick Murphy, Ann Kirkpatrick and Evan Bayh-- aren't as horrific as the Republican alternatives. We really need a vibrant "None of the Above" alternative on our ballots!

McCain And Toomey Are Running On A Platform Of Dysfunctional Obstruction Against The American People

Chuck Schumer and Jon Tester have recruited some really dreadful hacks to run for the Senate this cycle. In fact, their interference could cost the Democrats dearly. They worked to sabotage solid candidates like Alan Grayson (FL), Joe Sestak and John Fetterman (PA), Rob Hogg (IA) and PG Sittenfeld (OH) so they could please Wall Street with bankster-friendly candidates Patrick Murphy, Katie McGinty, Patty Judge and Ted Strickland. It appears that Murphy, Judge and Strickland are going down to disastrous defeat and that McGinty can only win by dint of strong enough Clinton coattails. Perhaps Schumer's worst recruit though was Ann Kirkpatrick, a worthless Arizona New Dem who is the exact example of the kind of reactionary and cowardly political careerist that Americans just HATE. Despite running against an even worse Republican, John McCain, she has virtually no chance win at all, offering nothing to working families beyond "I'm not quite as odious as McCain."

A new poll of Arizona likely voters, released yesterday, shows Hillary beating Trump 38.5% to 36.5% in this solidly red state. But Hillary's coattails are doing nothing for the fatally-flawed Ann Kirkpatrick from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. I mean if you want a Republican, why not vote for a real one, instead of a confused one who doesn't know what the hell she is. Her putrid voting record-- which cost her her House seat in 2010, when Democratic voters just refused to show up at the polls for her-- is why McCain is beating her 45.3% to 35.3%.

She probably won't even be able to capitalize on the stupidest comment made by a Senate candidate this cycle, McCain's shocking admission that he's part of a Republican Party conspiracy to obstruct the Senate if they keep control of Congress and Hillary wins the presidency. Jonathan Chait explained it succinctly-- context and all-- for New York Magazine readers:

Senate Republicans have formed a united front around the principle Barack Obama should not be able to appoint a replacement for Antonin Scalia, and that the seat should instead be selected by the winner of the 2016 election. This “principle” rests on a wildly selective reading of senatorial history, according to which it is somehow improper for a president to fill a Supreme Court seat in his final year. In reality, this principle has never existed before and was concocted on the fly in order to justify the simple exertion of power.

The implication of this claim, though, is that if Hillary Clinton wins the election, Republicans will give her latitude to appoint a reasonably well-qualified, non-extreme jurist to the vacant spot. I have long been skeptical that Republicans would actually go along with this if it comes to pass. And now John McCain confirms it. In an interview touting fellow Republican Senator Pat Toomey, McCain pledges that he and his party will continue the Supreme Court blockade throughout Clinton’s term. “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain said. “I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered.”

If Clinton wins and Democrats pull enough Senate seats, Republicans will oppose her nominee, and then, eventually, Democrats will change the rules to abolish filibusters of Supreme Court nominees. (Republicans will decry this foul measure and justify any subsequent actions of their own as justified revenge.) If Clinton wins and Republicans hold on to 51 seats, they will simply refuse to let any nominee through. The fact that it is McCain, a personal friend of Clinton and as strong an institutionalist as can be found in the Senate, who is proposing to extend the blockade indefinitely shows just how deep the commitment runs through the party.

The old norms held that presidents were given some deference in filling Supreme Court vacancies. Senators might object to a particular nominee on the basis of ideological extremism or lack of qualifications, but the president’s general right to appoint a member of his judicial team was considered sacrosanct. Like all the other norms holding back the exercise of power, this one has now collapsed. The new rule is that a president needs 50 senators to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

After this, McCain's got to go-- and Toomey with him. Soon after McCain let the cat out of the bag, I spoke with Mark Pocan, the congressman who represents Madison, Wisconsin. "Apparently, John McCain has learned nothing from the last six years or from the debacle of the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump," he told me. "Refusing to work in a bipartisan way, as has always been the foundation of our system of government, is the Tea Party way. That thinking is exactly what created Donald Trump. Either the GOP changes its ways or we need to change more of the faces of who goes to Congress. The current obstruction hurts everyone."

Carol Shea-Porter, who has served in Congress and is likely to win her race again in 3 weeks by defeating obstructionist teabagger Frank Guinta, shook her head sadly when she heard what McCain had said since she has a long history of being one of those congressmembers who always goes the extra mile to work across the aisle for the sake of ordinary families who count on Congress to actually accomplish stuff that makes their lives better. "It's so hard to understand," said Carol, "why Republican leaders would brag about grinding down this nation's government. Americans are very frustrated and worried about the dysfunction in Congress, but some Republican leaders actually promise more of the same. They need to put country before party. Trying to keep the government from fully functioning is an extremely shameful and destructive tactic that tears at the American fabric." Alan Grayson couldn't agree more. Busy raising campaign funds for Shea-Porter, he told us today that "Senator McCain seems to think that the whole country is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Or at least that he can try to make it that way."


After the news firestorm last night, McCain tried to wriggle out of what he had accidentally admitted. Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) pointed to an underlying problem with the tactics and strategy of hyper-partisan Republicans like McCain: "In fairness, Senator McCain walked back his disappointing comments regarding obstructing President Hillary Clinton's nominees to the Supreme Court shortly after making them. However, the Senator's verbal mulligan only underscores a deep, disturbing truth about the Grand Old Party's Majority in both the Senate and the House. The truth has been that Republican leaders aren't so concerned with their obligation to serve on behalf of the American people, to work hard to move our great nation forward and to ensure a fully staffed and functional Supreme Court. Instead, Republican Congressional leaders are consumed by serving the most cynical and radical voices in their party who would rather derail the key components of our nation's government, rather than allow a legally and rightfully elected President-- who just happens to be a Democrat come January 2017-- do her job on behalf of every hardworking American family."

The enduring cost of Trumpism: Big lies and scapegoating are now the official political norm

Here's where you can go to spin The New Yorker's "Trump and the Truth" spin wheel of lies.

by Ken

Here's how this initial version of the "Trump and the Truth" spin wheel (note that it's going to be updated in two weeks) is presented (with, of course, lots of links onsite):

In recent weeks, writers and fact-checkers at The New Yorker have produced a series of reported essays about Donald Trump and the truth. Presidential candidates have always lied, “but sometimes there really is something new under the political sun,” David Remnick wrote when he introduced the series, last month. Trump, the Republican nominee, “does not so much struggle with the truth as strangle it altogether.” Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has had her bald-faced moments. “But, in the scale and in the depth of his lying, Donald Trump is in another category.”

Or, as Margaret Talbot wrote, “Donald Trump lies, a lot—that’s a fact and easy to prove simply by reference to what he’s on the record saying.” Her piece on Trump and the “lying” media, along with the other essays collected here, offers a way to keep track of Trump’s fabrications—“a record,” Remnick wrote, “that appears to know no bounds and certainly no shame.”

Also in the series: Eyal Press looks at Trump’s claim that immigrants cause crime levels to increase; Adam Gopnik writes about Trump’s suggestion that Ted Cruz’s father was a party to the J.F.K. assassination; Jia Tolentino writes about the “Mexican” judge Gonzalo Curiel; Adam Davidson explains both Trump’s flip-flop on the Fed’s interest rate and his attempt to label the official unemployment rate a “hoax”; Jelani Cobb writes about Trump’s claim that “the African-Americans love me because they know I am going to bring back jobs”; and John Cassidy examines Trump’s alleged charitable giving.

Thirty-one days remain before the election. Anything can still happen. This spin wheel contains a Trump whopper pulled from every essay in the series. The topic of each essay appears on the outer ring, and a Trump quote that sums up the topic appears in each wedge, along with a link to the corresponding essay. We will update the wheel in two weeks. Spin with abandon.

LIES AREN'T NEW TO POLITICS. IT'S THE SCOPE
OF AND RELIANCE ON THEM THAT ARE SCARY.

Who's more monstrous, the Billion-Dollar Loser or
the Unspeakable Pence? (Or is it too close to call?)

Let me say this for the umpteenth time. Of course pols lie, and always have lied. And I've frequently noted my conviction that the Right officially went off the truth standard in the 2008 campaign season, where I was hard put to find a word of truth uttered by any Republican candidate at any level. It's just that The Donald, whom I think we now might better call the Billion-Dollar Loser, has escalated the practice to a mania, putting no discernable limit on his lies and casting truth and facts as a conspiracy to undermine America's Greatness.

The long-term problem, though, as I see it, is that America's Greatness is coming to consist more and more of the telling of and believing in lies. I've argued frequently that George W. Bush's popularity, when he was so popular that to his admirers any unkind word was considered the hanging offense of "Bush-bashing," was in his ability, or rather eagerness, to tell America the lies Americans wanted to hear. Which, to our common misfortune, was read by all too many Americans as the quality of a guy you'd like to have a beer with, which is of course the bestest quality we could look for in a president. (Personally, I found it hard to imagine anyone i'd less like to have a beer with, without even considering the general indications that, like so many habitual drinkers, he's a really awful, obnoxious drunk.)

And then when Chimpy became unpopular, it was because, while he wasn't lying any less, the lies he was telling once the poop started hitting the fan were not the lies Americans wanted to hear. When his adorers turned on him, they were exercising their God-given right to better lies. And they responded by essentially ghosting him. Once the economy melted down, on top of the ongoing disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, and as the bills for his free-spending neocon rule started coming due, it was as if, to all those people who had been worshipping him, he had never existed -- and wasn't still president of these United States.

It was an awesome performance by the American public, but again, we have to give proper credit to the people who paved the way, going back to St. Ronnie of Reagan, who taught his worshippers that if you don't like reality, you're free to choose any alternative reality you like and pretend that that's reality. And after two terms of Chimpy the Prez's all-lies-all-time governance, the standard was set.

The Billion-Dollar Loser, in addition to making no lie too big or small or outrageous for public consumption, has added another crucial component to our public discourse: the right, even obligation, to blame somebody else, anybody else, for anything you've done. Again, the basic impulse is hardly new. It is, again, the pervasiveness, scale, and savagery of this set of lies that's new. And it seems to be working -- because, again, the Biggest Loser has glommed onto lies that America loves. The only better than a convenient scapegoat for a particular occasion is a convenient scapegoat for every occasion.

Case in point: the emergence of the Unspeakable Pence as some sort of "compassionate conservative," as described by the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza -- a sort of bellwether sucker. DWT readers surely don't need to be told that the Unspeakble One is as monstrous a specimen of political odiousness as our system has produced. But apply a little polish, and set him alongside the monster who picked him as his running mate, and he can be made to look, to a sufficiently gullible public (raise your hands, America!), like a reasonable, principled guy.

SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS IS HARD. IGNORING
THEM AND FINDING SCAPEGOATS IS EASIER.

Which is to me the real horror going forward, regardless of the election outcome: the perversion of our political discourse to a new and all but irreversible level.

Lately I've been seeing some useful reporting, as part of the new genre of Explaining the Trump Phenomenon. on how the two presidential candidates are viewed in Trump-stronghold areas like what we might call post-industrial Ohio, where the last decade really has been an economic nightmare, and it might be understandable that un- and under-employed people might be blaming any Democrat for their plight and looking for any kind of change.

Under the present degraded standard of discourse, there's no way of fighting back. It clearly doesn't matter that the Billion-Dollar Loser's entire professional career has been built on suckering and taking the fullest possible advantage of just such people. Or that Hillary, in her now-infamous "basket of deplorables" comments, in fact spoke with considerable understanding of just those people, as the other half of the Trump supporters, whose situation unquestionably needs to be addressed.

True, Sonny John himself fell by the wayside, but his
and Miss Mitch's War on America has been a winner.

Since facts no longer matter, it doesn't matter that Republicans have been major architects of those people's legitimate grievances. And since in today's lie-rich and scapegoat-happy discourse, Obama-demonizing has become so natural that no other explanation is required. It doesn't matter, of course, that going back before Day One of the Obama administration, "Miss Mitch" McConnell and "Sunny John" Boehner had already worked out the strategy that congressional Republicans have in fact employed throughout the Obama presidency: making sure that nothing the president tried could happen, or at least work. The cynicism was always stupendous: Their strategy, open and unapologetic, was to make as many Americans as possible suffer as badly as possible, to get them to Vote Right.

There was one aspect of this strategy that might have seemed overly audacious: the assumption that they would never be held to account for the price of their obstruction. Well, it's said that for big gains you have to gamble big, and they've won their gamble. You listen to those people -- not the "deplorables," who have their own agenda, but the victims of a winner-take-all economy -- reflexively blaming all their woes on that [expletives deleted] Obama, and you have to conclude that that gamble has paid off to an extent that even I in my most pessimistic imaginings didn't imagine. "Scot-free" is how the obstructionist have emerged from their Fuck America for Freedom crusade.

Which is a reminder that, even if Hillary is elected, she -- and we -- can expect a level of congressional obstruction that will make these past years look like an era of bipartisan harmony. And we can expect the political gain to accrue to the cynical liars who best understand what lies the American public wants to hear.

#

Voters Are Starting To Catch On That GOP Obstructionism Could Be Dangerous The Their Families' Health

Paul Ryan and his utterly dysfunctional House Republican conference is riven with so much in-fighting and back-stabbing and with so many ideological purity tests that they can't get anything done-- not even the most basic functions of government. The Florida delegation-- both Democrats and Republicans-- have been begging and are now demanding that Ryan call Congress back into session to deal with the Zika crisis. Ryan hasn't and won't. He knows nothing will get done if he does, except confirming in the minds of the American people-- right before an election-- that the Republican Party is unfit for a serious role in government. You have the lunatic fringe anti-science head of the House Science Committee, Texas' Lamar Smith, acting as if everyone just needs to buy a can of RAID and keep their windows closed (as Zika spreads into the Rio Grande Valley) and you have the GOP peanut gallery who sees the emergency as an opportunity to force the Democrats to let them gut women's choice as a "compromise" in order to release funds to fight Zika.

Next week congressmembers are coming back to DC from their long, long vacations. One told me he expects Ryan to allow have Congress working on the barest on schedules and allow them to be back in their districts campaigning for almost all of September and October. "I'm making plans for a trip overseas... that's who certain I am that Ryan isn't going to schedule votes," he told me yesterday. A poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation released at the end of the week found that 92% of Americans are aware of the Zika crisis and that 36% say that passing new funding to deal with the outbreak should be a top priority for Congress, with an additional 40% saying it should be an important priority-- that's 76% and across party lines. 54% of voters say they trust Hillary to deal with the Zika outbreak more and 34% say they trust Señor Trumpanzee more. Among independent voters 45% trust Hillary to deal with Zika more effectively and 39% say they trust Trumpanzee to. But even 18% of Republican voters say they trust Hillary more on Zika than trust Trumpanzee.

The Zika virus outbreak continues to be the health policy story most followed by Americans. In July, health officials confirmed the first cases of individuals being infected by mosquitoes in the U.S. in a Miami, Florida neighborhood, and a subsequent travel advisory recommended that pregnant women stay away from the area.

...Three-fourths of the public (76 percent) are aware that there are cases of local transmission in the country-- that is, cases where people are being infected with the Zika virus by mosquitoes. A smaller share, but still a majority, report being aware of travel warnings issued for areas in the United States affected by the outbreak (58 percent).

About half of the public (48 percent) say that they would be “not too” or “not at all” comfortable traveling to places in the U.S., like parts of Florida, where people have been infected with Zika by mosquitoes. In contrast, six in ten say they would be not be comfortable traveling to U.S. territories like Puerto Rice where people have become infected (59 percent) or to places outside the U.S. where people have become infected (61 percent).

Individuals who report being aware of travel warnings for areas in the U.S. affected by Zika are more likely to say they are not comfortable traveling to places affected by the virus. For example, when asked about traveling to places in the U.S. like Florida where people have been infected by mosquitoes, 59 percent of individuals aware of travel warnings say that they would not be comfortable, compared to 39 percent of those who thought travel warnings had not been issued. In addition, women are not as comfortable traveling to places affected by Zika than men. Fifty-three percent of women, compared to 43 percent of men, report being not comfortable traveling to places in the U.S. where people have been infected by mosquitoes.

...Despite President Obama’s February request for almost $1.9 billion to deal with the Zika virus outbreak, U.S. Congress has not passed any additional funding. Thirty-six percent of the public say that passing new funding to deal with the outbreak in the U.S. should be a top priority, with an additional 40 percent saying it should be an important but not a top priority. Nine percent think passing new funding is not too important, and 5 percent say that new funding should not be passed at all.

There are partisan differences in these findings, with a larger share of Democrats than independents or Republicans saying Congressional funding to deal with the Zika virus outbreak should be a top priority (46 percent v. 34 percent and 27 percent). However, a large majority of all partisans say that new Congressional funding should be at least an important priority of Congress.

Lamar Smith, mosquito

The Texas progressive running for the Austin-San Antonio district congressional seat Lamar Smith holds, Tom Wakely, is worried that Smith's ideological obstructionism is getting in the way of safety for people in his state. "While departmental waste is undoubtedly a bipartisan issue that warrants investigation," he told us, "it boggles the mind that we're having a pay-for discussion in the midst of a public health crisis. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, there have been 147 reported cases of Zika virus in the state of Texas. Twelve of these cases have occurred in counties that are represented by my district. This is no longer a threat we can view with binoculars. It is no longer an issue that can be evaluated in dollars and cents. One of the Texan cases is already confirmed as being a pregnant woman. How many children have to be born with microcephaly before our Republican-led Congress addresses this as what it is, a public health emergency? Where's the media outrage over the fact that we're treating an emergency of this nature with the fiscal scrutiny typically reserved for corporate tax rates or oil subsidies? Quite frankly, the fact that Congress is willing to treat a public health crisis with the same blasé attitude that they employ in their unconditional rejection of a Supreme Court nominee should be a grave warning to the American people. If they're willing to make a point out of a plague, where does it stop?"

And when does all the knee-jerk GOP obstructionism stop? They need a lesson they won't forget-- like defeating crackpot anti-science Republicans like Lamar Smith. In fact, defeating enough Republicans to make Paul Ryan think twice about ever pulling this kind of stunt again.

GOP Congressional Strategists Already Building A Wall Of Obstructionism Against President Hillary

I've been talking with congressional candidates in swing districts-- and some red districts-- all over the country who are telling me their internal polling numbers show Hillary absolutely crushing the Trumpanzee. Many are hopeful that Hillary's coattails are going to sweep them into office and, in fact, the DCCC and DSCC seem to think even their incredible weak menagerie of unlovable conservative candidates can win-- despite what Democratic voters want and expect from Congress-- as a result of an anti-Trumpanzee tsunami. And the DSCC may manage to drag atrocious otherwise unelectable candidates like Katie McGinty (PA), Ted Strickland (OH), and even Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ) over the finish line and win a Senate majority, but Pelosi's shockingly incompetent DCCC would need an certifiable miracle to do the same in the House. Even with a Democratic Senate (stuffed with shitty members from the far right of the party who will be eager to work out terrible deals with the GOP), President Hillary is still going to have to face a GOP-controlled House with two objectives: obstruction beyond even what they did to Obama and a concerted effort to destroy her politically in time for the 2020 election.

First thing Monday morning Politico started the day with a warning from an unnamed "powerful Hill GOP aide" who was referring to a Washington Post piece that weekend envisioning Clinton, Paul Ryan and Chuck Schumer working on a package to boost infrastructure spending, alongside some form of corporate tax reform. The "powerful Hill GOP aide" attributes that vision to Clinton and calls it absurd. "Clinton is delusional. Nothing they want can be remotely paid for without massive, economy-crushing tax increases. And no one will be politically cowed by her after this election. It won’t be difficult for Republicans to unite in opposition to virtually every single thing she has campaigned on. And if Paul [Ryan] is running for president in 2020, all of his upside is in fighting her tooth and nail."

Politico urges its readers t take note: "this is an important preview of the next year if Hillary wins. Even if the Senate turns Democratic, the House is likely to remain in Republican hands. And if Clinton wins the White House, she’ll have to navigate a House Republican Conference that is only becoming more conservative."

And not "more conservative" in the way Trumpist sociopath Steve Bannon seems to define it. The Trumpists won't be a major presence in Congress. The only Member Trump endorsed and did an ad for so far, Renee Ellmers (R-NC) got crushed in her reelection primary and the only Republican in either house of Congress to have contributed money to the Trumpanzee campaign is clueless and anti-science House Science Committee chairman, Lamar Smith. Trump may have an enthusiast in Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and a miniscule handful of House backbenchers-- nose-bleed seats, in fact-- but his influence in Congress will be next to nothing by November 9. If he has any influence it will be because the buzz about his new media empire with Bannon, Ailes, and Mercer turns out to be real. But here's how Bannon described his own vision for America, which is distinctly any but conservative, to Ronald Radosh of the Daily Beast 2 years ago:

[W]e had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

Shocked, I asked him what he meant.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

...“National Review and the Weekly Standard,” he said, “are both left-wing magazines, and I want to destroy them also.” He added that “no one reads them or cares what they say.” His goal was to bring down the entire establishment including the leaders of the Republican Party in Congress. He went on to tell me that he was the East Coast coordinator of all the Tea Party groups. His plan was to get its candidates nominated on the Republican ticket, and then to back campaigns that they could win. Then, Bannon said, when elected they would be held accountable to fight for the agenda he and the Tea Party stood for.

If they didn’t, “we would force them out of office and oppose them when the next election for their seats came around.”

That, essentially, was the tactic employed when Eric Cantor was ousted by a far right candidate, virtually unknown college economics professor Dave Brat, in his Virginia district’s primary. It was also the path Donald Trump’s supporters took in Wisconsin, when hoping to duplicate their successful tactics in Virginia, they ran a candidate in the Wisconsin Republican primary against Speaker Paul Ryan in his own district. There are a few Republicans that Bannon does respect. One of them is Rep. Louis Gohmert, the fiery congressman from Texas, who was also at the party. Gohmert, who is part of the self-proclaimed anti-establishment wing of the Republican Party, was an ally of Cruz in the government shutdown.

Trump’s decision to take on Bannon indicates that he wants to wage his campaign along the lines laid down by him-- that of destroying the Republican leadership and the Party as we know it. Trump’s behavior thus far has been compatible with Bannon’s belief in Leninist tactics. As the Bolshevik leader once said, “The art of any propagandist and agitator consists in his ability to find the best means of influencing any given audience, by presenting a definite truth, in such a way as to make it most convincing, most easy to digest, most graphic, and most strongly impressive.”

Only one question remains. Knowing this, why do leaders like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and others, who regularly condemn Trump’s statements but yet still endorse him, stick with such a self-defeating approach? They will only end up helping Bannon and company cast them into oblivion and finish their hostile take-over of the GOP.

So maybe the House Republicans will have a two-front war on their hands next year-- battling President Hillary one the one hand and the Trumpanzee Media Empire on the other. I would suggest that a plan to making sure that neither brand of conservatism becomes the dominant governing principle of this country, we should do our best to elect as many progressives as possible, not garden variety DSCC and DCCC Democrats who will never stand up for anything, but real progressives like the ones on this page that pops up when you click the thermometer:

Are Republicans Fit To Govern If They Can't Even Pass A Bill To Protect Americans From The Zika Virus?

President Obama started asking congressional Republicans for emergency Zika funding in March. BY May they hadn't done a damn thing. We wrote at the time that instead of cooperation, what the House Republican leaders had given Obama instead of cooperation was more deranged right-wing intransigence and more of their crazy, dangerous anomie. The sociopaths at the Heritage Foundation started threatening to finance primaries against Republicans who moved to help Obama protect the country from a grave health problem unless the money to fight the virus was taken from programs already funded that they don't like (like Medicare and Obamacare). "When, we wondered aloud, is enough enough from these crackpots?"

Another 6-7 weeks have gone by and the Republicans are still playing politics with Zika. This morning even Politico noted that it could come back and bite them in the ass at election time. "Congress," wrote Burgess Everett, "is poised for an epic failure in its efforts to combat Zika before lawmakers leave Washington for a seven-week vacation-- and it could come back to bite Republicans at the ballot box if there’s an outbreak of the mosquito-borne virus in the United States this summer." Seven week vacation, while the country faces a truly devastating threat the GOP has let ride while Paul Ryan was busy wringing his hands about Trump, figuring out the most effective timing for the GOP's partisan Benghazi attack against Hillary, and repackaging his old schemes to wreck Medicare and Social Security by calling them "A Better Way?"

The GOP proposal the Senate Democrats rejected today not only stole money from the Affordable Crae Act, but gratuitously threw in some nonsense about allowing Confederate flags to fly at national cemeteries. This is why voters are so sick and tired of Congress-- and particularly so sick and tires of the House Republicans.

The attack ads this time write themselves: Faced with months of dire warnings from health experts, the Republicans who control Congress failed to provide money to stop the spread of Zika to the United States. Bracing for such a message, Republicans began the week spinning the expected defeat of the House-passed bill as politics as usual for Democrats, alleging that the minority party would rather attack Republicans over the issue than pass a funding bill.

...Republicans say there will be no do-over: Once the bill fails on Tuesday, the Senate will not revisit Zika funding, Cornyn said. They say Democrats got what they wanted and won’t take yes for the answer... The stalemate comes in the midst of the summer mosquito season, when the Zika threat is strongest.

In May, 3 Florida Republicans-- Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Vern Buchanan and Carlos Curbelo-- worried their constituents might lynch them-- since that is the state were Zika is thought to be the biggest and most immediate threat-- voted with the Democrats against Ryan's bill (as did Justin Amash of Michigan). The chairman of the House Science Committee, Texas goof-ball Lamar Smith, wasn't helpful in the Zika matter. In fact, his only "contribution" to the debate was to demagogue against refugees and warn that refugees might be carrying Zika virus. As for President Obama's request for $1.9 billion last February to prevent a major Zika outbreak, Smith has been opposed. And in May ole Lamar voted for the ridiculously ineffective $622 million bill that isn't going to do anything but ruin the lives of thousands of infants and their families. Marco Rubio (R-FL) didn't agree with the approach Smith and Ryan were taking. "There is no reason why we should not fully fund this. Quite frankly, that’s just not going to cut it."

It's time for Lamar to Smith to move along

The Texas progressive running for the Austin-San Antonio district congressional seat Smith holds, Tom Wakely, sees it the same way Rubio and President Obama do-- and is worried that Smith's ideological obstructionism is getting in the way of safety for people in his state. "While departmental waste is undoubtedly a bipartisan issue that warrants investigation," he told us last month, "it boggles the mind that we're having a pay-for discussion in the midst of a public health crisis. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, there have been 36 reported cases of Zika virus in the state of Texas. Five of these cases have occurred in counties that are represented by my district. This is no longer a threat we can view with binoculars. It is no longer an issue that can be evaluated in dollars and cents. One of the Texan cases is already confirmed as being a pregnant woman. How many children have to be born with microcephaly before our Republican-led Congress addresses this as what it is, a public health emergency? Where's the media outrage over the fact that we're treating an emergency of this nature with the fiscal scrutiny typically reserved for corporate tax rates or oil subsidies? Quite frankly, the fact that Congress is willing to treat a public health crisis with the same blasé attitude that they employ in their unconditional rejection of a Supreme Court nominee should be a grave warning to the American people. If they're willing to make a point out of a plague, where does it stop?"

The final House bill passed Thursday 239-171, complete with all the GOP-engineered poison pills. Only 6 right-wing Democrats crossed the aisle and voted with the GOP in favor of it-- all the regular suspects, Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Brad Ashford (Blue Dog-NE), Scott Peters (New Dem-CA) and Jerry McNerney (CA).

The bill needed 60 votes in the Senate today and only got 52. The 48 NO votes included every Democrat but right-wing Blue Dog Joe Donnelly (IN), as well as Republicans Mike Lee (UT) and Jim Lankford (OK). In blocking the bill this morning, Florida Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Democrat, noted that "Four months after the request for emergency funding, the House in the dark of the middle of the night, with no opportunity for debate, puts on an otherwise uncontroversial bill, a bill to deal with the virus. It's not serious. Instead, it's another attempt to use an emergency must-pass bill to try to further extremist political agendas. Why can't we grow up and get to the point that we don't want to play partisan politics? We need to stop playing these political games. It's time to treat this as a real emergency and it's time to pass the appropriations bill without all of this political agenda added to it."

Alan Grayson pointed out right after the Senate vote that "Florida's first Zika-related microcephaly birth was confirmed today. So, of course, Marco Rubio and his fellow Senate Republicans respond with a bill that not only fails to fund an adequate response to this unfolding crisis, but is also larded with poison-pills for Planned Parenthood, clean water protections and health programs. It was a craven abdication of their legislative duty. It has to stop. There's no time left to put politics over public health."

If you'd like to help Grayson get into the Senate and Wakely get into the House-- replacing the two buffoons that currently hold the seat-- please tap the thermometer below and contribute what you can:

Democrats Overcome GOP Opposition To Medical Marijuana In Veterans Hospitals

The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll dug into how independent voters view the two parties. It's just a snapshot in time but 23% of independent voters saw the Democratic Party positively and 37% saw them negatively. Pretty horrible. But it was far worse for the Republicans. Only 8% of independent voters have a positive view of the GOP, while a staggering 52% see the Republicans negatively. Knee-jerk, systemic Republican congressional obstructionism helps explain the numbers.

Voters see the inability of the Republicans to deal with even things as basic as voting on a Supreme Court vacancy or protecting the citizenry from the spread of the Zika virus in a very negative way. If Americans-- or even just independents-- voted on those feelings, there would be just a small handful of Republicans left in Congress.

It isn't even just on the big matters of state where the GOP seems deranged and filled with destructive hatred. They can be counted on to be wrong on almost everything. When I was a teenager I used to smoke pot. It's what teenagers were doing in the 1960s. By the 70s, I had stopped completely. I had zero interest in marijuana for 4 decades until I started feeling the effects of chemotherapy. I still didn't want to use marijuana... until I was persuaded it would help me to survive; and it did. That was over a year ago. I have plenty of the stuff left but now that I'm well, I have no use for it and no interest in it. It saved my life though, so... I respect it. It's lucky for me that I live in California, where medical marijuana is legal.

Last Thursday, Congress moved towards making medical marijuana legal everywhere. The House voted 233-189 by an amendment by Oregon's Earl Blumenauer to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act that will "prohibit use of funds to implement, administer, or enforce any Veterans Health Administration Directive relating to the prohibition on VA providers from completing forms seeking recommendations on opinions regarding a veteran's participation in a state marijuana program." It was widely seen among Members of Congress for what it is: a step towards medical marijuana legalization.

Only 5 Democrats, led by reactionary anti-pot psychopaths Dan Lipinksi (IL) and Henry Cuellar (TX)-- 2 Blue Dog throw-backs-- opposed it. Even anti-marijuana crusader Debbie Wasserman Schultz voted yes! And so did 57 Republicans! Of course-- and this helps explain why independents have such negative feelings about the Republican Party-- 184 Republicans voted NO! The Senate passed a companion amendment with several senators from both parties noting that it would help veterans avoid using dangerous and addictive opiates. Tuesday, California Republican Dana Rohrabacher, who has been a major advocate for legalization in Congress, told marijuana activists he has been using a marijuana-rub to relieve the pain of arthritis.

Among the Republicans voting against the amendment was the ridiculously placed chairman of the House Science Committee, Lamar Smith of Texas-- Austin no less!-- who's living (and legislating) in a different era. No medical marijuana relief for veterans living in Austin, San Antonio, New Braunfels, San Marcos or the Texas Hill country! This morning we contacted a military veteran and winner of the TX-21 Democratic congressional primary, Tom Wakely, who had a very different perspective than Lamar Smith's. "It seems par for the course that Congressman Smith, who refused to provide a hearing on Ron Paul and Barney Frank's resolution to end the federal prohibition of marijuana, would try to make it more difficult for veterans to get access to legal medication in their home state. The constituents of our district favor medical marijuana. San Antonio is a military town and I can guarantee the veterans of this district are just as confused as I am on why Republicans seemingly favor our 10th Amendment except in the case of a proven, harmless drug. I stand with the majority of House Democrats and the few Republicans who recognized this was a common sense vote. Personally, I'd like us to go further and put an end to the federal prohibition of marijuana, allowing the drug be turned over to the states for regulation. By definition that's supposed to be the conservative viewpoint. Then again, it's becoming harder and harder to define the platform of the modern Republican party."

Mario Diaz Balart joined the reactionary Republicans voting against the amendment, the only South Florida congressman to do so. Every Florida Democrat plus Florida Republicans Carlos Curbelo, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Tom Rooney voted in favor of the amendment but, for some reason, Diaz-Balart decided that veterans in Miami-Dade, Collier and Hendry counties, whose doctors want to prescribe marijuana for pain, sleep or to help with appetite will just have to do without. This morning we contacted the progressive Democratic physician running for the seat Diaz-Balart is sitting in, Alina Valdes, who has a very different perspective than Diaz-Balart, one based on science and humanity. "I have been practicing medicine for over 30 years," she told us, "and that time has been spent in physician shortage areas where people feel disenfranchised because they do not have the resources to make their voices heard especially after the Citizen's United and Corporate Personhood decisions. Many have given up on the political system which does not care about them and their needs. This vote on the use of marijuana to relieve pain and suffering is wrong as many studies have shown the benefits to neurological and musculoskeletal conditions, which many of our vets suffer. To insist that they use traditional opioid BigPharma medications to relieve their symptoms is causing further suffering. Many patients have expressed the desire to be pain free without needing to feel like a zombie while also risking an unintended overdose due to tolerance that is known to develop with these narcotic medications. Many of them use street marijuana and risk arrest and imprisonment because it helps them feel both physically and therefore mentally better.  This is a natural weed with medicinal benefits and is available to many living in states that allow physicians to write these prescriptions. As a general internist, I took an oath to serve, heal, and relieve pain and suffering in so doing. I would personally have no problems prescribing medical marijuana under the appropriate circumstances. To continue to classify marijuana as a class I controlled substance in the same category as heroin and peyote makes no rational sense. It just feeds the inhumane thinking of profits over people in both the pharmaceutical and private prison industries. Our vets especially deserve better than this and it is time for Congress to educate themselves rather than allow their votes to be swayed by big corporate interests funding their re-election campaigns."

And then there was backward Republican multimillionaire and Chris Christie's puppet-congressman Tom MacArthur. He voted against the amendment too, even though every New Jersey Democrat plus New Jersey Republicans Frank LoBiondo and Scott Garrett voted to give the vets a break. MacArthur thinks he has the right to override physicians who want veterans in Burlington and Ocean coutnies to have the opportunity to use medical marijuana if it will help their conditions. This morning we contacted the progressive Democrat running against MacArthur, Jim Keady. "This issue shows a clear difference between myself and my GOP opponent. I believe that we need to make marijuana legal for both medicinal and recreational use at the federal level. We then can regulate it, tax it and use the revenues for tax relief or for a range of social programs," said Keady. "Specific to our Veterans, I was just listening to two Vets who were at my family's tavern the other night; both of them wanted to be able to use marijuana to deal with PTSD. They should be able to do this, legally, anywhere in the United States."

Isn't it time to retire these Republican wastes and replace them with more forward-thinking progressives? Please consider contributing to the grassroots congressional campaigns of Tom Wakely, Alina Valdes and Jim Keady, progressive Democrats in Texas, Florida and New Jersey.