Bipartisanship... The Good Kind

Yesterday we talked about how cowardly New Dem freshmen Patrick Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema, who Boehner and Cantor know they can count on to almost always betray progressive Democratic ideals and vote with the GOP in a way that allows them to claim their toxic agenda is "bipartisan," have a phony-baloney bipartisan caucus that helps round up naive Democratic freshman to vote with the GOP. That isn't bipartisan-- that's self-loathing surrender-monkey opportunism. And Murphy and Sinema are probably the two worst mistakes of 2012.

This week Alan Grayson (D-FL) showed the way real bipartisanship actually works, something people like Murphy and Sinema will never understand even if they manage to survive in 2014. For Grayson, it comes natural and reminds people of how he was able to work with Ron Paul and bring along enough Democrats to pass Audit the Fed legislation that neither corrupt party establishment wanted to see happen.

This week Grayson's amendment to H.R. 1613 (the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act) was suddenly reported out of the House Rules Committee and was voted on Thursday. The amendment is simple: "Nothing in this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, affects the right and power of each State to prohibit management, leasing, developing, and use of lands beneath navigable waters, and the natural resources within such lands, within its boundaries." His amendment makes sure that States can do what they wish within their own boundaries. If Florida or New Jersey want to ban offshore oil drilling off their own coasts, they should be guaranteed the right to. In fact, Grayson rallied nearly the entire Florida delegation-- Democrats and Republicans-- in a way that left the entire House in shock. The Thursday go failed-- primarily because Henry Waxman, who supports it, was out of the room when it was time to vote and no one could find him. It was an unprecedented 213-213 tie. Only 5 rotgut Blue Dogs-- John Barrow (GA), Jim Matheson (UT), Jim Cooper (TN), Collin Peterson (MN) and Jim Costa (CA), among the most corrupt Members in the history of a very corrupt institution-- voted against the bill on the Democratic side.

Meanwhile, Grayson was able to personally persuade state's rights-supporting Republicans, that this bill fit into their worldview. The Florida Republicans who went along with him:

• Gus Bilirakis
• Vern Buchanan
• Ron De Santis
• Mario Diaz-Balart
• John Mica
• Jeff Miller
• Richard Nugent
• Bill Posey
• Trey Radel
• Tom Rooney
• Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
• Dennis Ross
• Daniel Webster
• Ted Yoho

Doddering and incompetent imbecile Lois Frankel voted NO, but Pelosi woke her up and read her the riot act and she was quickly back on board. Today it was Hoyer, Israel and Pelosi that were corralling reluctant Democrats when Grayson introduced the same amendment for H.R. 2231, Doc Hastings' heinous Offshore Energy Act, It failed by one vote, 209-210 because the only two Democrats who wouldn't vote for it were the two biggest oil whores in the Democratic caucus, John Barrow and Jim Matheson. Barrow, especially-- coming from a state with a long coastline-- was happy to screw his own constituents and Georgians traditional preference for state's rights because Barrow takes more in bribes from Big Oil than any other Democrat in the House. Matheson, by the way, is #2.

Hastings freaked out that so many Republicans voted for the amendment Thursday and he got the GOP leadership to lean on Members. Doug LaMalfa voted against it yesterday but voted for it today-- until Hastings made him switch back to a NO voted again! Florida Republicans who voted for the amendment Thursday but were unable to resist leadership pressure Friday and switched to NO votes were:

• Ron De Santis
• John Mica
• Richard Nugent
• Tom Rooney
• Dennis Ross
• Daniel Webster

I wonder if GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy reminded Webster that it was Grayson's team who gave him the nickname "Taliban Dan." But the real culprit in this was clearly John Barrow, who had every reason in the world to vote for it-- and whose vote would have changed the outcome-- but who delivered for the oil companies that gave him $106,900 last year alone. Grayson doesn't get paid off by Big Oil the way Barrow and Matheson do and he works for us, not them. He's asking for contributions this weekend for his end-of-the-quarter FEC deadline. Give him a hand here.

Read More

Is It Worth It For The Democrats To Try Winning The Deep South?

Proud Southerner

Over the weekend, Molly Ball, writing in The Atlantic made the case for Democrats winning back the Deep South. When I was just becoming aware of politics as a kid, everything that made me hate the Democratic Party stemmed from the fact that it owned the Deep South-- and was owned by the Deep South. I remember how all the reactionary committee chairs in both Houses were Southern racists. Now Southern racism, bigotry, and overall backwardness has taken over the Republican Party and made it anathema to normal Americans. Let them keep it; let them continue to choke on it. "In 2012," writes Ball, "Republicans took over the Arkansas state legislature, and Democrats now do not control a single legislative chamber in the old Confederacy."

Many Southern Democrats-- and a lot of national Democratic strategy for winning in the South-- think the way to do it is to mimic Republicans, if not always with the reactionary social policies, certainly always with the reactionary economic and fiscal policies. Screw that. The Democratic Party would be much better off without reactionary politicians always tugging it to the right, the way, for example, John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA) does. If the Democrats want to make the case that a progressive, family-friendly agenda is better for Southern voters, let's go for it. If the Democrats want to make the case they they're almost as conservative and backward as the Republicans... it's a waste of time and effort. Here's Ball's case:

The demographics of the South are changing fast. Quite simply, all of the states of the old Confederacy are getting less white, said Chris Kromm, director of the Durham, N.C.-based Institute for Southern Studies, a research center founded by civil-rights-movement veterans. "I don't think there's any question there is a lot of potential [for Democrats] there given how rapidly the landscape of the South is changing," he said, calling it a "highly volatile moment in Southern politics."

The Southern states have America's fastest-growing Latino populations. Of 11 states whose Hispanic populations doubled between 2000 and 2011, nine-- Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas-- were in the South. Black populations are also growing, thanks in part to a new migration of African-Americans back to the South. At current rates of growth, Georgia and Mississippi could be majority-minority states within a decade. South Carolina's Republican governor, Nikki Haley, won in 2010 by 60,000 votes; demographers estimate there are as many as 100,000 eligible but unregistered African-American voters in the state.

Other forces are changing the region's culture. Though the South remains more rural than the rest of the country, its cities and suburbs-- from the North Carolina Research Triangle to the Atlanta exurbs-- are booming thanks to an influx of white-collar professionals. "The urban centers in the South are becoming centers of political power, and that's what's going to change politics," Kromm said.

...Since the days of Arizonan Barry Goldwater, the Southwest had been solidly Republican. But that changed in the last decade. Western Democrats like Brian Schweitzer and Harry Reid won by emphasizing quality-of-life issues like education and the environment, neutralizing the culture war (often by professing love for the Second Amendment), and mobilizing the growing Hispanic vote. Far-right Republicans like former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo helped Western Democrats make the case to moderate suburbanites that the GOP had gone off the ideological deep end. Now, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado have voted Democratic in two straight presidential elections, and the party has even managed to win statewide elections in Montana and Arizona.

"We moved into the Southwest on the theory that the demographics were changing and Republicans had gone too far to the right," [Jill] Hanauer told me. Two years ago, she detected the same thing starting to happen in the South. She changed her firm's name to Project New America and quietly began to research a new region.

In the coming weeks, Hanauer and Loranne Ausley, a former member of the Florida House of Representatives, plan to launch something they're calling the Southern Project, which will conduct research and formulate messages that can help Democrats win over Southern voters. A pilot study conducted in North Carolina in February, for example, concluded that under the state's Republican governor, Pat McCrory, "there is a clear sense that hardworking taxpayers are getting the short end of the stick at the expense of big corporations and the wealthiest." The set of talking points advises progressives to make arguments "focused around fairness and accountability," whether the issue is tax reform or charter schools. The Southern Project will equip Southern Democrats with similar examples of messages that have been poll-tested to resonate with voters.

Obama lost North Carolina by just 2 percentage points in 2012, but Republicans took the governor's mansion and a supermajority in the state legislature, helped by a multimillionaire named Art Pope who poured money into the party and its candidates. After the election, McCrory put Pope in his administration's budget department and began pushing a highly ideological agenda through the state legislature, sparking a backlash that has resulted in weeks of protests at the statehouse in Raleigh .

Ausley, who ran unsuccessfully for statewide office in Florida in 2010, said Republicans across the South risk alienating voters with their hard rightward turn. Every Republican-led Southern state has rejected the federally funded expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare, she noted; in Florida, Governor Rick Scott tried to accept the funds, but his own Republican-dominated legislature blocked the move. Southern Republicans have recently decried women's entry into the workforce and advocated teaching schoolchildren about proper gender roles.

"Republicans are doing the same thing over and over again to appeal to their base, and at some point it has to come back to bite them," Ausley said. Southern voters are generally conservative, but they're not extremists, as Mississippi showed in 2011 when it overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional amendment that would have declared a fertilized egg to be a "person" with rights. Genteel Southern moderates like Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia find themselves increasingly endangered by Tea Party primary challenges; Chambliss has chosen not to run for reelection next year, setting up a race that will test Democrats' ability to win in that state.

Lately I've been criticizing the DCCC for only focusing on the current cycle and never thinking about building a long-term plan to beat vulnerable Republicans in purple districts. If the DCCC had worked against powerful committee chairmen Paul Ryan, Mike Rogers, Darrell Issa, Fred Upton, Buck McKeon, Dave Camp in 2010 and 2012, at least 5 of them would be dead ducks going into 2014. McKeon, in fact, sees the writing on the wall already-- after being beaten by Lee Rogers with ZERO help from Steve Israel's DCCC and Wasserman Schultz's DNC-- and is on the verge of retiring. He's already told top GOP officials in the district he won't run again in 2014 if Rogers runs against him. (And Rogers is about to make a big announcement; I doubt it will be that he's not going to run.) I was interested that some of the Southern Democrats are, unlike the DCCC, taking a long-term approach. Former Mississippi Governor Ronnie Musgrove told Ball that his goal is "to lay the groundwork long-term for the South once again to be a Democratic stronghold," by "building a strong bench of up-and-coming Democratic leaders."

South Carolina-based Republican consultant Chip Felkel makes a good point, though. "It's still a place that, to borrow a phrase, clings to its guns and religion, and I think it will continue to do so. As long as the Democratic Party still seems to be the party that's opposed to religion and guns, a large segment of the Southern population is going to have trouble with that, especially at the federal level." The Democratic response has all too often been to present this kind of garbage in response:



It's the wrong road for Democrats to go down. Barrow himself is likely to be defeated in 2014, unless Republicans nominate a crackpot extremist. Same goes for another reactionary white Democrat in North Carolina, Blue Dog Mike McIntyre. They come from an old school of thought that says that Democrats can only win in the South by acting like Republicans. Barrow and McIntyre routinely vote with the Republicans in the House on almost every crucial roll call. This year, for example, both voted with the GOP against raising the minimum wage and both voted with the Republicans for CISPA. Both voted for a GOP Farm Bill that would have gutted the food stamps program for the Democratic base in their own districts. Just minutes before that vote, both voted against Ron Kind's amendment that would have cut farm subsidies to wealthy farmers. And the day before, both voted against Jim McGovern's amendment to keep the SNAP (food stamp program) funded. 175 Democrats opposed the GOP plan to remove President Obama from the Keystone XL process and only 19 Democrats crossed the aisle and voted with the GOP. Of course Barrow and McIntyre were among them as were fellow mostly right-wing Southern Democrats Patrick Murphy (FL), Jim Cooper (TN), Henry Cuellar (TX), Sanford Bishop (GA), Al Green (TX), Gene Green (TX), Ruben Hinojosa (TX), Terri Sewell (AL), and Filemon Vela (TX). Who needs them if they're going to vote like Republicans, oppose LGBT equality, oppose women's Choice, and work to water down reforms? Monday morning, the National Journal outlined once again how backward elements inside the GOP (read: unreconstructed Confederates) are destroying the party from within. Who wants them in the Democratic Party, which is a party that stands for something-- or at least still has a segment that stands for something.

Alan Grayson also represents a formerly Republican district in central Florida and he doesn't ever adopt Republican positions in some kind of idiotic electoral calculus. That's why his constituents-- and progressives statewide and nationally-- admire him. If we're going to win back the South with Alan Graysons, I say let's go for it. If winning back the South means more John Barrows and Mike McIntyres, let the Republicans keep it... while they alienate the rest of America.

Fetal masturbation. Rape doesn’t usually result in pregnancy. Grade-schoolers should be taught traditional gender roles.

A handful of House Republican lawmakers seem unable to stop making headlines on abortion and gay marriage. And Republicans on and off the Hill know who’s to blame:

House Speaker John Boehner.

GOP lawmakers, strategists, and insiders say Boehner and House leadership are enabling foot-in-mouth disease by allowing divisive social issues to reemerge at a time when Republicans were finally winning the daily messaging war against a controversy-plagued White House.

Republicans say they want leadership to start calling out the fringers, distancing the party from the lawmakers’ remarks. And they want leaders to stop bowing to interest-group pressure to put risky social issues on the House floor.

Good luck with that, boys. This is your base now:

Read More

Dan Lipinski Joins The Blue Dogs As They Gasp Their Last Breath

The Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010 really marked the end of the any claim to power or influence for the treacherous conservatives inside the Democratic Party known as Blue Dogs. They lost dozens of Members as Democrat base votes just stayed away from the polls in droves and let them go down to ignominious defeats in district after district. 2010 was the last hurrah for conservatives undermining progressive values inside the caucus and in committees, the likes of obstructionist reactionaries and careerists Bobby Bright (AL)-- Blue America's favorite scalp that year-- Allen Boyd (FL), Gene Taylor (MS), Jim Marshall (GA), Baron Hill (IN), Travis Childers (MS), Walt Minnick (ID), and Brad Ellsworth (IN), to name just a few. The following cycle, 2012, a good year for real Democrats, was another nail into the hearts of what was left of the now ridiculous Blue Dog Caucus, which had already been supplanted by the New Dems as the place for corporate lobbyists to go to bribe conservative Democrats to vote with the GOP. In 2012 only one new Blue Dog was elected, Pete Gallego (TX) and we were happily rid of several of the worst Blue Dogs remaining-- Tim Holden (PA), Joe Baca (CA) and Jason Altmire (PA) in primaries and Leonard Boswell (IA), Ben Chandler (KY), and Larry Kissell (NC) to Republicans. Reading the writing on the wall, sleazy Blue Dogs Mike Ross (AR), Dennis Cardoza (CA), Heath Shuler (NC), and Dan Boren (OK) all avoided defeats by retiring. All 4 seats were Republican pickups.

And then there were 3 mangy Blue Dogs who escaped defeat by the skin of their teeth: John Barrow (GA), Mike McIntyre (NC) and Jim Matheson (UT). With any luck, all three will lose in 2014. All three-- who are consistent in voting with Boehner and Cantor against the Democrats on crucial issues-- are facing challengers who came close to beating them in 2012 and who have momentum going into 2014.

Barrow was lucky. The viable Republican in the 2012 race, Rick Allen, was in a primary battle with another Augusta Republican. That allowed a weak GOP candidate from the rural southern part of the district, Lee Anderson, to slip in. Even without much support, Anderson held Barrow down to a 54-46% win in November. Anderson spent $1,173,443 to Barrow's $2,880,363, most of which came from PACs. Even so, Anderson beat Barrow in 10 of the district's 19 counties, including giant Columbia County. Next year Barrow is likely to be facing Allen, a wealthy businessman and favorite of the Republican Establishment, not Anderson. Although Obama lost to Romney in the district (43.6- 55.4%), the big turnout among African-American voters for Obama helped Barrow immensely. It's not likely Barrow will have the kind of support in a midterm, especially if someone spends some resources telling African American voters who Barrow consistently votes against their interests. Obama wanted to raise an increase in the minimum wage, for example. Barrow was one of the only Democrats to vote with the Republicans against it. Instead of just taking out ads that claim (falsely) that Barrow is a puppet of Nancy Pelosi, if Republicans had half a brain, they would take out ads on black radio talking about Barrow's voting record. GA-12 was just gerrymandered to defeat Barrow and has a daunting PVI of R+9! If the NRCC can't do it, they should lose their license to practice electoral politics.

Much easier for the Republicans are the actual rematches between two of the weakest Democrats in the House, Matheson and McIntyre. Last year McIntyre beat David Rouzer 167,590 to 167,057 (533 votes) in a newly redistricted NC-07 that was gerrymandered to have a staggering R+12 PVI. Of the district's 12 counties, Rouzer won 5, including biggies Brunswick and Johnston. Last time, Rouzer had to contend with a psychotic teabagger primarying him that kept him busy most of the time he should have been focusing on McIntyre.

Similar story for Matheson in Utah. He managed to beat Republican Mayor Mia Love 108,275 to 105,629. UT-04-- with a PVI of R+16-- has 4 counties. Love won 3 and Matheson held his base in the biggest, Salt Lake, where he beat her 53-44%. UT-04 only gave Obama 30% of it's votes in 2012 (down from 41% in 2008); this really is the Republican heartland and there's no reason in the world for voters there to tolerate even a Democrat as conservative as Matheson. Love will be a far better candidate after her close loss last year. She's already hired much better staff and is far more focused on the district. There are no sure things in politics but a victory for Love over Matheson in 2014 is as close as you'll get.

Will the Blue Dogs close up shop and just join the New Dems after the three expected defeats? The DCCC looks like its ready to spent a couple million dollars on Blue Dog loser Brendan Mullen in Indiana again, but he'll lose even more decisively than he did in 2012. Aside from Gallego, the only "new" Blue Dog is Illinois reactionary Dan Lipinski who was angered at not getting the appointment as Ambassador to the Holy See... and joined the Blue Dogs recently to get revenge. (He votes with them all the time anyway.) Still, with the defeats of Matheson, Barrow and McIntyre in 2014-- and the departure of Mike Michaud who is retiring from Congress to run for governor of Maine-- that will leave just 11 hapless Blue Dogs in the House... unless, like Adam Schiff, Loretta Sanchez (CA) also quits the caucus. Then there'll be 10, many of whom are already more committed to the New Dems than the most racist, misogynistic and homophobic Blue Dogs. That's a lot smaller than the House Bicycle Caucus.

Read More

Yes, There Are Still NRA Shills Among Congressional Democrats

Few are as blatant and tone deaf as John Barrow (New Dem/Blue Dog-GA), but there are Democrats firmly allied with the NRA in both the House and Senate. In fact, four of them in the Senate-- Mark Pryor (AR), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Mark Begich (AK), and Max Baucus (MT)-- just got unpleasant wakeup calls on the issue from Michael Bloomberg. He sent the letter below to hundreds of top Democratic donors urging them to stop writing campaign checks to NRA shills-- particularly these NRA shills. Heitkamp doesn't face the voters for another 5 years and Baucus is finally retiring. But Begich and Pryor are in tough reelection races for 2014 and if donors cut them off, they could be in trouble, although a case has been made that in both Alaska and Arkansas, being seen as someone not liked by the mayor of New York City does a candidate more good than bad in a general election. Last week we saw how billionaire Democratic donor Kenneth Lerer announced he would withhold contributions from NRA Democrats-- and possibly help fund primary opponents against them.

The move could inflame tensions that have simmered for weeks between Mr. Bloomberg, who blames the four Democrats for the defeat of the bill, and Democratic Senate leaders, who have privately told City Hall that the attacks can serve only to empower a Republican majority openly hostile to Mr. Bloomberg’s priorities.

By appealing to the Democrats’ financial base, Mr. Bloomberg is exploiting his relationships and prestige among wealthy New Yorkers to disrupt the flow of campaign money to key Democrats whose re-election next year will help determine whether the party retains control of the Senate. No state is more essential to the party’s fund-raising: Sitting Democratic senators and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $30.4 million from New York donors in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, more than in any other state.

...Mr. Bloomberg’s strategy creates a tricky situation for Senate Democrats. They do not wish to alienate the billionaire mayor, who has become increasingly aggressive and outspoken on the issue. But they say he should be more sympathetic, given that their party, with its fragile majority, has tried to take on the difficult subject of increasing restrictions on guns in the face of hostility from Republicans.

“What they are doing,” said one senior Democratic aide who, like many people interviewed for this article, declined to go on the record criticizing the mayor, “is increasing the likelihood of a 100 percent A-rated N.R.A. Republican being elected.”

For Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who was an architect of his party’s takeover of the Senate in 2006 and has aggressively built up the Democratic donor base in New York, and who is a close ally of the mayor, the notion that Mr. Bloomberg’s efforts could cost Democrats their majority is not an abstraction.

He praised the mayor’s effort, but added, “We should be mindful that pro-gun safety laws have a much better chance of passing under a Democratic Senate majority than a Republican one.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s idea to use his formidable resources against Senate Democrats was enough of a threat to the majority leader, Harry Reid, that he raised the issue with the mayor in Washington in February.

According to a person with direct knowledge of their conversation, Mr. Reid told the mayor that he thought any efforts to attack Democrats would be shortsighted, and could ultimately result in a Republican Senate majority.

“Do you think you’d be better served by Majority Leader McConnell?” Mr. Reid said, according to this person, referring to Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Mr. Bloomberg appears undeterred. In May, he financed a $350,000 blitz of tough television ads against Mr. Pryor, featuring the fatal shooting of a friend of the senator. Mr. Bloomberg said voters would reward the senators if they heeded the public-- which broadly favors background checks-- instead of the National Rifle Association and other groups opposed to the legislation.

“If Democrats want to keep control of the Senate, what I would suggest is that they have all of their members vote for things that the public wants,” he said in the interview. “And if they don’t do that, the voters should elect different senators who will listen to them. That’s what democracy is all about.”

If a background-check bill passes the Senate, Mr. Bloomberg said, he will seek to put similar pressure on the Republican-led House, including appeals to Republican donors in New York who favor more gun regulation. Some Senate Republicans have already found themselves targets of the mayor.

This is the counter-ad that Pryor ran in Arkansas. "No one from New York or Washington tells me what to do; I listen to Arkansas." (He mostly listens the Walton family-- and to talking snakes.)



Bloomberg's letter:

I am writing to ask you: the next time these four Senators want you to support them with donations to their campaigns, tell them you cannot. Until they show that they will stand up for the American people and not the gun lobby, tell them you cannot support their candidacy. These “no” votes were a slap in the face to Americans everywhere. Polls consistently show that 90% of Americans-- including 82% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members-- support requiring background checks for all gun sales. But instead of standing up for what’s right, and for a common-sense measure their constituents support, these Senators made a calculated vote designed to pander to the gun lobby in anticipation of their next election.

...Senators Baucus, Begich, Heitkamp, and Pryor sided with the minority, reminding us of why so many people are angry at Congress. Astonishingly, the four Senators did this even as they ask New Yorkers, who contributed a significant share of the funding for their last election bids, to donate to them once again. Their votes were an affront to the nation. Make no mistake: loopholes at the federal level undermine our efforts to keep our streets safe.

By voting against background checks, these Senators told us they would rather bow down to a special interest group than support a common-sense measure to help law enforcement fight gun crime. Now you can tell these Senators: by voting against background checks, they voted against your values and your family’s safety. And until they show they will stop bowing to pressure from the gun lobby, you should not support them.

Last year Bloomberg money defeated NRA shill Joe Baca in California. Baca is trying to get back into Congress next year. Bloomberg is likely to make sure that doesn't happen. He should also help end John Barrow's miserable, craven career in politics.

Read More

Does The DCCC Actually Care About Immigration Policy?

I was invited to the White House yesterday for a briefing. I passed on the hassle and the opportunity. I suppose I would have heard President Obama reiterating his strong support for commonsense reform legislation to fix our broken immigration system, and the economic and national security benefits that reform will deliver. Tom Donohue of the US Chamber of Commerce, always pumping for cheap labor, was there-- as were labor leaders Mary Kay Henry and Richard Trumka. The President also invited two DREAMers, Gabriela Pacheco and Tolu Olubunmi. Later in the day, despite opposition from ugly little Texas fascist Ted Cruz and the KKK's Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL), the Senate stopped the GOP filibuster against the comprehensive immigration bill 82-15. Meanwhile, Boehner was even heard muttering that the House might pass it with mostly Democratic support in the House and just a few Republican votes there. “It’s not about what I want," said a Speaker clearly caught between a rock and a very, very hard place. "It’s about what the House wants…we’re gonna let the House work its will.” Forget the Hastert rule... again.

The old video at the top of the page-- and from the top of the current DCCC website geared towards Spanish-speaking voters is dramatically out of date and hints at how "important" to DCCC Chair Steve Israel (D-Princesses: Long Island) Hispanic voters are-- i.e., not at all. Israel takes them for granted and expects they'll vote for Democrats because the Republicans are so absolutely horrible. And the Republicans are horrible. As we saw last week, Republicans sent Hispanic voters a signal by voting overwhelmingly to deport DREAMers. Luckily Boehner and Issa weren't waiting outside the Rose Garden yesterday with the House Seargant-at-arms to arrest Gabriela Pacheco and Tolu Olubunmi. Only 6 Republicans voted against the bigoted Steve King Amendment that demanded DREAMers be deported. And only three Democrats voted for it (while 195 Democrats opposed it).




So the DCCC response, predictably, has been to take out Spanish-language ads against some of the Republican miscreants, vulnerable Republicans in swing districts. Mike Coffman (CO), Blake Farenthold (TX), John Kline (MN), Joe Heck (NV), Buck McKeon (CA), Gary Miller (CA), Erik Paulsen (MN), Steve Pearce (NM), and Frank Wolf (VA) were the targets.

"The Republican party insists that they have changed, but once again, House Republicans like Gary Miller have betrayed our community, rejecting President Obama’s executive order that ended the deportation of DREAM Act-eligible young people," the ad's narrator says in the version targeting Miller. "What’s more, Congressman Miller wants to restart the deportations of 800,000 young people who grew up in this country, worked hard, and are just looking for their chance to achieve the American Dream. Now, instead of celebrating the first anniversary of the deferred action program, our young DREAMers again face an uncertain future."

Decent targeting and a decent and effective ad. There is a problem with the DCCC delivering it though. Any money the DCCC raises through these efforts will be used, in part, to bolster their Frontline program. The Frontline program is the top priority for the DCCC. It is all about rescuing Democratic incumbents who look like they could lose their seats for one reason or another. And two of the most likely Democrats in this loser category are reactionary Blue Dogs/New Dems John Barrow (GA) and Mike McIntyre (NC). Both crossed the aisle and voted with the Republicans to deport the DREAMers. A case study in hypocrisy? Is this what Nancy Pelosi was talking about when, on reappointing Steve Israel to head the DCCC despite his abysmal job performance in 2012, she remarked that he's sufficiently "reptilian" to do the job? Just keep in mind, if you contribute even one dollar to the DCCC, some of that money goes to bolster the miserable careers of bigots like John Barrow and Mike McIntyre.

Si usted aporta ni un dólar al DCCC, parte de ese dinero se destina a impulsar las carreras miserables fanáticos como John Barrow y Mike McIntyre.

Pardon my French.

McKeon (R) and Barrow (D) both voted to deport DREAMers

Read More

Yesterday The Republicans-- Plus 3 ConservaDems-- Voted To Get Busy Deporting Latinos

The overall bill was for appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security and that passed 245-182, 25 Democrats joining all but 10 Republicans in favor. The Democrats who crossed the aisle and voted for the bill were mostly a bunch of New Dem scum like Patrick Murphy (FL), Scott Peters (CA), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), John Barrow (GA), Bill Owens (NY), Brad Schneider (IL), Ami Bera (CA), Mike McIntyre (NC), Joe Garcia (FL), Ron Barber (AZ)... all the usual suspects backing the toxic GOP agenda. But the real problem was the amendment voted on earlier in the morning and offered by Iowa racist and neo-fascist Steve King. King's amendment defunds the Obama Administration DREAMer policy, which prioritizes deporting criminals instead of students.

Republicans have argued that these orders amount to the selective enforcement of U.S. immigration laws that discourages enforcement against children who were brought to the United States illegally, or illegal immigrant adults who are not in any legal trouble. Many Republicans have dubbed Obama's orders as "administrative amnesty."

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) sponsored the amendment to the 2014 Department of Homeland Security spending bill, and called for its passage in late Wednesday debate by saying Obama's orders-- also known as the Morton memos-- violate the Constitution.

"The point here is… the President does not have the authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air, and he's done both with these Morton memos in this respect," King said.

King added that while the government has prosecutorial discretion, Obama does not have the authority to create classes of people who are exempt from the law through an executive order.

Democrats said King's language is a "poison pill" that would not survive final passage, and that the Supreme Court has ruled that the executive branch has the right to prioritize cases through an order.

"So for the gentleman to argue that there is some constitutional infirmity with deferred action is wrong," Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said in response to King's arguments. "He's wrong on the law. He's wrong on his constitutional argument."

It passed by a much narrower margin, 224-201, only 3 of the most conservative Democrats in the House going along-- while half a dozen Republicans opposed Boehner and Cantor and cross the aisle to vote with the Democrats against it. The three Democrats backing the racist proposal:

• John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA)
• Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC)
• Nick Rahall (confused-WV)

It will be interesting, of course, when the DCCC attacks Republicans for voting to deport Latinos. I mean they should attack Republicans on this vote but the fact that DCCC chairman Steve Israel is promising Barrow and McIntyre as much as $2 million each for their reelection campaign... well it really does smack of hypocrisy, especially when the DCCC says something to the effect of "send us money so we can defeat the evil deporters" and then gives millions to... evil deporters. Last cycle, he DCCC (and their House Majority PAC) spent $1,080,748 saving Barrow's ass from a weak opponent. This year he's likely to have a much tougher and better funded opponent. And last year, the DCCC's $2,005,888, propelled McIntyre to the narrowest of victories-- 165,590 to 167,057... just 533 votes. His opponent of last year, David Rouzer, is running again and will be much better funded. Maybe Barrow and McIntyre shouldn't be catering to Republican voters who want to replace them and think a little bit about Democratic voters who have few reasons to bother turning out on election day.

So someone still thinks there's any chance in hell the House will pass a comprehensive immigration bill? There are enough teabaggers and racists in the GOP caucus to keep even Republicans who understand the demographic tidal wave heading for places like Texas from backing any policy towards undocumented immigrants other than deportation. Period.

In response to the vote, United We Dream Managing Director Cristina Jimenez released the following statement:

“Representative Steve King, an anti-immigrant extremist with a history of attacking our community, is up to his old tricks. Late last night, Rep. King filed an amendment to block funding to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which narrowly passed this morning. Our community, the immigrant youth movement, fought and won a huge victory last year with the deferred action policy. Now, some House Republicans are making their demands clear—a return to deporting DREAMers!

This is an outrage and the exact opposite of what our country needs from its political leaders. Does Speaker Boehner want to follow Rep. Steve King’s lead and seal his party’s fate as an out-of-touch, extremist party that has forever marginalized the immigrant and Latino community? Or will the House take a new direction and pass immigration reform that not only stops the deportations of DREAMers and our families but also creates a clear path to citizenship? It’s up to them. DREAMers will not let politicians get away with this.

Starting next week, United We Dream will once again bring dozens of DREAMers to Washington, D.C. to confront and challenge politicians who are blocking our path to citizenship and harming our community. We will be holding Senate and House negotiators from both parties responsible for protecting provisions that matter deeply to our families. We won’t settle for anything less than a clear path to citizenship, family unity, and an end to the deportations of DREAMers and our families.”

The White House statement was more succinct:

As the Senate prepares to debate bipartisan commonsense immigration reform next week, House Republicans chose to spend today passing an extreme amendment to strip protections from “Dreamers.” These are productive members of society who were brought here as young children, grew up in our communities, and became American in every way but on paper. This amendment, sponsored by Representative Steve King, runs contrary to our most deeply-held values as Americans. It asks law enforcement to treat these Dreamers the same way as they would violent criminals. It’s wrong. It’s not who we are. And it will not become law.

And Karl Rove warned Republicans that they could be sealing their fate for years to come. "Republicans must consider the impressions they will create," especially among Hispanic voters, Rove said Thursday in a Wall Street Journal column. "There is growing public support for providing a pathway to citizenship for those now in the country illegally."

Rove made note of how important the immigration issue could be to Republicans in future elections by pointing out that 58 percent of Hispanics seem immigration reform as one of the most important issues facing the country, topping everything else.

"A January Latino Decisions survey suggested that 42 percent of Hispanics would vote Republican or be more likely to if the GOP 'took a lead role' in passing comprehensive reform with a path to citizenship," he wrote.

"Many Hispanics won't be open to Republicans until it is resolved," Rove added.

Read More