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

Corrupt House Agriculture Committee Slashes Food Stamps Unmercifully-- With Help From Ann Kuster

Last year, the Blue Dogs only managed to elect one mangy freshman, homophobic conservative Texas state Rep. Pete Gallego. Obama beat McCain in his district (TX-23) 50-49% in 2008 and Romney beat Obama this last time, 51-48%. Gallego managed to edge weak GOP freshman Francisco "Quico" Canseco 96,477 (50%) to 87,255 (46%), after beating Ciro Rodriguez in a primary runoff in this heavily Hispanic district that hugs the Rio Grande border with Mexico from just north of Laredo to just south of El Paso.

Thursday morning I wasn't surprised to see Gallego tweeting away how on Wednesday night he had voted in the House Agriculture Committee-- long, one of the bastions of Blue Dog corporate corruption-- for a $940 billion bipartisan new Farm Bill. I rolled my eyes and wondered how bad it would be. It was bad and cuts nearly two million poor people off food stamps, a top GOP priority that Blue Dogs tend to support.

The bill would cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) by almost $21 billion over the next decade, eliminating food assistance to nearly 2 million low-income people, mostly working families with children and senior citizens.  The bill as a whole would reduce total farm bill spending by an estimated $39.7 billion over ten years, so more than half of its cuts come from SNAP.  The SNAP cuts are more than $4 billion larger than those included in last year’s House Agriculture Committee bill.

The bill’s SNAP cuts would come on top of an across-the-board reduction in benefits that every SNAP recipient will experience starting November 1, 2013.  On that date, the increase in SNAP benefits established by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) will end, resulting in a loss of approximately $25 in monthly SNAP benefits for a family of four.  Placing the SNAP cuts in this farm bill on top of the benefit cuts that will take effect in November is likely to put substantial numbers of poor families at risk of food insecurity.

The majority of the bill’s SNAP cuts come from eliminating a state option known as “categorical eligibility.”  Congress created this option in the 1996 welfare law, allowing states to provide food assistance to households-- primarily low-income working families and seniors-- that have gross incomes or assets modestly above federal SNAP limits but disposable incomes in most cases below the poverty line.  The bill also would eliminate SNAP incentive payments to states that have improved payment accuracy and service delivery, would cut nutrition education funding, and would curtail a state option that reduces paperwork for many households with utility expenses and also lowers state administrative costs...

The proposed cuts would cause significant hardship to several million low-income households.

Jim McGovern (D-MA) introduced an amendment to protect the food stamps funding but it was defeated 27-17, after Juan Vargas (D-CA), embarrassed Republican hypocrites by quoting the Book of Matthew in opposing them: "When I was hungry you gave me food. When I was thirsty, you gave me drink." Watch the an especially telling part of the debate from delusional right-wing psychopath Steve King (R-IA):



The two highest ranking Democrats on the Committee, Blue Dog scum Collin Peterson (MN) and Mike McIntyre (NC) plus millionaire New Dem Sean Patrick Maloney (NY)-- each of whom are on Steve Israel's Frontline list to receive millions of dollars from the DCCC next year-- voted with the GOP, not just for the overall bill, but against McGovern's amendment. The Agriculture Committee is a stinking cesspool of corruption and an institutional organ of shillery for corporate agribusiness. That they passed a wretched bill doesn't surprise me in the least. With just a precious few exceptions who try to protect family farms and consumers-- basically Marcia Fudge, Jim McGovern, Joe Courtney, Richard Nolan and John Garamendi, the committee is all about crooks who want to line their pockets. “In this Congress," Garamendi told his California constituents, "when push comes to shove, it’s the voiceless that get shoved the most. We’re seeing that in the sequester with the immediate harm befalling Head Start, Meals-on-Wheels, and housing assistance, and we’re now seeing it with steep cuts to SNAP in the Farm Bill. SNAP puts food on the table for homebound seniors, for kids who would otherwise go to bed hungry, and for hardworking Americans barely making it. I wish it were a little more kind to the people who need help the most and I will work with my colleagues on the Committee to find a way to ensure the final bill does just that. In a country where 16 million children don’t have enough food to eat, we can and must do better.”

The 8 Democrats who voted NO on the final bill were David Scott (GA), Marcia Fudge (OH), Jim McGovern (MA), Gloria Negrete McLeod (CA), Filemon Vela (TX), Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM), Juan Vargas (CA) and Joe Courtney (CT). I was disappointed, though hardly surprised, to see Ann Kuster (NH), once again on the Dark Side, selling out the progressives who helped win her her seat. Kuster's callous and disgusting attitude went out in a cheery press release about how great she is yesterday:

“Last night’s vote was an important step forward for farmers, consumers, and rural communities in New Hampshire and across our country. For too long, Congress has kicked the can down the road and failed to provide long-term authorization for vital agricultural, nutrition, and conservation programs. Our government’s failure to pass a Farm Bill last year added uncertainty to our economy, inhibiting investments in job creation, research, and rural infrastructure.

“Republicans and Democrats owe it to the American people to break the gridlock and find common ground, which is why I supported this bill-- despite its deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. I am gravely disappointed that this legislation undermines assistance for hungry families, and I fought hard to protect this essential program. At the same time, this Farm Bill contains many important reforms: it eliminates wasteful direct payment subsidies, streamlines more than 100 duplicative programs, and includes both an amendment I sponsored to support rural colleges and an amendment I cosponsored to expand access to local, healthy food.

I sure hope someone primaries her.

Read More

New Dems Vs Actual Democrats-- Chained CPI

The Blue Dogs are a discredited, spent force, essentially wiped out in the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010 when Democratic voters in their districts stayed away from the polls and dozens of them went down to defeat on the same day. Today the conservative Blue Dog coalition is down to a motley crew of 14: John Barrow (GA), Sanford Bishop (GA), Jim Cooper (TN), Jim Costa (CA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Pete Gallego (TX), Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC), Mike Michaud (ME), Collin Peterson (MN), Loretta Sanchez (CA), Kurt Schrader (OR), David Scott (GA) and Mike Thompson (CA). The 3 co-chairs (Barrow, Cooper and Schrader) all joined the New Dems and at this point 6 of the remaining Blue Dogs are members of the New Dems, a corporately-oriented group of anti-family conservatives who aren't as reactionary as the Blue Dogs on social issues like Choice, guns, immigration and marriage equality. New Dems are like Blue Dogs without the KKK robes and hoods-- except for the Blue Dogs that have infiltrated.

But if the Blue Dogs are an irrelevant and spent force, the rising power among right-wing corporate-oriented congressional Dems is the New Democratic Coalition (the New Dems). Of the 47 Democratic freshmen in the 113th Congress, 17 are New Dems and another 9 consistently vote with the New Dems on all the crucial roll calls and work with them to undermine progressive initiatives in committees. These are the New Dem freshmen (along with their ProgressivePunch crucial vote scores) Steve Israel recruited last year and helped elect to Congress:

• Juan Vargas (CA- 82.61)
• Joaquin Castro (TX- 73.91)
• John Delaney (MD- 69.57)
• Derek Kilmer (WA- 69.57)
• Elizabeth Esty (CT- 68.18)
• Filemon Vela (TX- 65.22)
• Denny Heck (WA- 65.22)
• Suzan DelBene (WA- 60.87)
• Bill Foster (IL- 52.17)
• Joe Garcia (FL- 52.17)
• Brad Schneider (IL- 47.83)
• Ami Bera (CA- 47.83)
• Patrick Murphy (FL- 47.83)
• Dan Maffei (NY- 43.48)
• Sean Maloney (NY- 43.48)
• Scott Peters (CA- 43.48)
• Kryrsten Sinema (AZ- 43.48)

and the fellow travelers:

• Michele Lujan Grisham (NM- 56.52)
• Gloria Negrete McLeod (CA- 54.55)
• Julia Brownley (CA- 54.55)
• Pete Gallego (TX- 52.17)
• Bill Enyart (IL- 47.83)
• Cheri Bustos (IL- 43.48)
• Ann Kuster (NH- 43.48)
• Raul Ruiz (CA- 43.48)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ- 31.82)

When the Republicans and their ConservaDem allies realized that they wouldn't be able to privatize Social Security all in one shot-- that third rail of American politics thing still being very much in force-- Boehner persuaded a naive and befuddled Obama to help them take the electricity out of the third rail by taking a bite out of Social Security with a scheme called Chained CPI, which would lower the formula for calculating inflationary cost of living increases for retirees. The Republicans don't have the guts to pass Chained CPI on their own and be forever known as the slayers of Social Security, so Obama promised them he would deliver a requisite number of Democrats to make it look bipartisan. Although a few elderly Establishment hacks who were once actual progressives-- Henry Waxman and Mel Watt-- are now backing dismantling Social Security, it is the New Dems Obama and Boehner are turning to for support for their scheme. John Delaney, a multimillionaire New Dem freshman from Maryland who sent $2,370,556 of his own to buy his seat last November, wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post-- which was then pimped around DC by slimy New Dem Executive Director Adam Pase-- extolling the virtues of Chained CPI by insisting that Congress should be "reforming entitlements by adopting a form of 'chained CPI' to lower the long-term costs of these programs..." That seems to be the official New Dem position.

When you ask DCCC-recruits this cycle about Chained CPI, they clam up. Progressive running for Congress universally oppose Chained CPI. The co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison have spoken endlessly about why it would be a disaster for the most vulnerable Americans. Yesterday Alan Grayson (D-FL) explained it on John Fugelsang's Current TV show, Viewpoint (video above).

John Fugelsang: You posted... that the President's offer, essentially to cut Social Security benefits for seniors, does break a promise to America's seniors. Some Republicans, of course, seem to like that.  So, will Democrats support it, or will they support cuts to other social programs?

Congressman Alan Grayson: Well, the President specifically said in September 2008 that he would not change the formula for calculating the cost-of-living adjustment. That [would] take $1,000 a year out of the pockets of 90-year-olds. As for whether the Democrats will support it, I don't know, but I know they shouldn't. We've lined up 35 Democrats here in the House already who say, in the “Grayson-Takano Letter,” that they will vote against any cuts in Social Security, or Medicare, or Medicaid benefits.

John: So let me ask you, is it worth keeping the sequester cuts and foregoing any new revenues, in return for keeping Social Security as it is?

Alan: That's not a choice that we should ever have to make. Social Security is not responsible for the deficit. The Social Security Fund has $1.9 trillion in it. It's the largest sovereign wealth fund in the entire world. The Social Security Fund has been operating at a surplus now ever since the fund was founded, ever since the program was founded. We are 25 years away from anything resembling a problem of any kind with the Social Security system. In the next quarter of a century, under current law, the beneficiaries can get all that they're entitled to. I don't understand why we're fretting over what might or might not happen in the year 2037, when we have 25 million Americans who are looking for full-time jobs [right now].

John: Well as you know, here on Viewpoint, we don't like to call these programs 'entitlements'--we call them 'earned benefits'. But is there no compromise to be had for the President, unless he offers something like that up?

Alan: That's just not the way you negotiate. The President has offered something up, in return for nothing. There's no sign that the Republicans have any interest in making any sort of deal with the President, and even if they did, we're not talking about things that are commensurate with each other. You can't equate cutting Social Security benefits, cutting Medicare benefits-- breaking the promise that we Americans have made to ourselves, the covenant that we make to ourselves-- you can't equate that with having millionaires and billionaires and multinational corporations finally pay their fair share of taxes.

John: With over 80% of the Bush tax cuts made permanent, I would add. So, let me ask you then, sir, for President Obama, is this an elaborate piece of political theater? Is he taking a page out of Dick Morris' playbook for Bill Clinton by triangulating against House Democrats on this issue? So he can put himself in the middle of the political spectrum, where they say most voters live?

Alan: He may think so, but he's making a terrible mistake. This is not a 'Sister Souljah' moment for the President. In fact, the President, I believe, is soon going to find through public polling that this is a terrible mistake. 90% of Democrats and 80% of the Republicans are against this specific proposal. If you're talking more generally about cuts in benefits, you find that 80% of the Democrats and 65% of the Republicans are against this kind of proposal. This doesn't make any sense, either from a policy point of view, or a moral point of view, or even a political point of view. In fact, the President is putting at risk all the progress that we've made in identifying the Republican Party as the party in favor of cuts for Medicare and Social Security benefits, and the Democratic Party as the party that will protect the public from the Republicans.

Many people voted for Obama (and the Democrats) because of this clear, simple statement below. Was he lying at the time? Henry Waxman, a supporter of Chained CPI, whose district is one of the most liberal in California, will have a primary next year if he follows through on his promise to screw with Social Security.

Read More

Not Every Homophobe In Congress Is Republican-- And The DCCC Wants To Spend Your Money On Anti-Gay "Democrats" Running For Reelection

Jim Matheson (D-UT), a face of the Mormon bigotry against the LGBT community. Last year the DCCC funneled $1.3 million into reelecting him

When you contribute to the DCCC, most of the money that gets earmarked for candidates goes to Frontliners, vulnerable incumbents viewed as having the worst chances to be reelected. There's a list. Most of them, though not all, wind up on the list because they vote like Republicans and local Democrats hate them and don't contribute to them or even vote for them. Like Mike McIntyre... who came within 650 votes of losing in November, will face a primary from Jonathan Barfield next year and, if he survives that (and doesn't retire or try a career Hail Mary pass with a pointless run against Kay Hagan), will be challenged by Republican David Rouzer again. Democrats in North Carolina may abhor Rouzer, but McIntyre usually votes exactly the same way he promises to vote-- last month against minimum wage, for example. Only 6 Democrats joined the Republicans to defeat a proposal to raise the minimum wage-- John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC), Bill Owens (New Dem-NY), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) and Kurt Shrader (Blue Dog/New Dem-OR)-- and, like with any reactionary initiative, Boehner and Cantor know they can count on McIntyre. So if you responded to one of Steve Israel's desperate and unending pleas for contributions last week, you just helped finance the several million dollars the DCCC will waste trying to defend McIntyre's seat next year. And if you're gay or pro-LGBT rights it's doubly ironic because McIntyre is one of Congress' most virulent and hateful bigots.

The last time the Republicans made an anti-gay push-- with a homophobic amendment to the Violence Against Women Act on February 28-- 164 Republicans + Mike McIntyre (NC) and nominal Democrat Dan Lipinski (IL) voted for it. It wasn't enough to carry the day. 60 Republicans (not to mention the 197 other Democrats) seem to have decided homophobia is on the way out and the GOP leadership amendment was defeated despite McIntyre's treachery.

Democrats have evolved mightily on LGBT equality-- at least most Democrats have. In July 1996 when DOMA first passed 118 Democrats joined with 224 Republicans to pass it. Only 65 Democrats (+ Independent Bernie Sanders and one gay Republican, Steve Gunderson, voted against it). Last year crazed GOP homophobe and hatemonger Steve King (R-IA) attached an amendment to the 2013 defense appropriations bill to prevent same sex couples from marrying on bases. It passed 247-166. There were 17 Democrats who also voted with the hate-mongers. Here's the list. The ones bolded were singled out by the DCCC, not for retribution but for special financial support in their reelection bids. They were on the DCCC's Frontline list for 2012 and their faltering reelection campaigns were top priorities for DCCC spending last cycle. Because millions of dollars were spent on them, there was no money to go after vulnerable Republican policy makers like Paul Ryan, Buck McKeon, Fred Upton, Eric Cantor, etc:

John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA)
Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY)- defeated
Jerry Costello (IL)- retired
Mark Critz (PA)- defeated
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
Joe Donnelley (Blue Dog-IN)
Gene Green (TX)
Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA)- defeated in primary
Larry Kissell (Blue Dog-NC)- defeated
Dan Lipinksi (IL)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Nick Rahall (WV)
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)- forced to retire
Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)- forced to retire

Over the weekend The Hill counted 11 Democrats left in Congress who are unevolved gay hating bigots. Obviously McIntyre is one of them. Their list includes the 9 Democrats who voted in 2011 to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to gay couples who have neither left Congress nor publicly changed their positions: Barrow, Bishop, Cuellar, Green, Lipinski, Matheson, McIntyre, Peterson and Rahall plus two freshmen Democrats who voiced opposition to same-sex marriage during their 2012 campaigns: Bill Enyart (IL) and Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX). Of the 11, Israel has vowed to pump immense sums of DCCC money into the campaigns of Barrow, Enyart, Gallego, Matheson, and, once again, McIntyre.

The Hill also counts 9 Democrats who haven't taken a position on marriage equality yet: New Dem chairman Ron Kind (WI), Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Cedric Richmond (New Dem-LA), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog/New Dem-OR), David Scott (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA), Terry Sewell (New Dem-AL), Bennie Thompson (MS), Pete Visclosky (IN) and freshman Filemon Vela (New Dem-TX).

The Hill contacted all 20 offices this week as the Supreme Court considered two gay marriage cases and several Democratic senators made headlines by announcing their support for gay marriage.

Matheson, Rahall, and Gallego’s offices said they continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage.

Green said the choice should be left to the individual states but didn’t address DOMA, which he’d voted to uphold, or say whether he personally supported gay marriage.

Richmond told The Hill in a statement that he is “a firm proponent of equal rights” and thinks DOMA is unconstitutional, but didn’t expressly endorse legalizing gay marriage. His office said they had nothing more to offer on the matter when asked if that meant he backed gay marriage or just civil unions.

The rest of the offices did not respond to requests for comment.

Sewell said in 2010 that she supported gay rights but expressed a preference for civil unions over gay marriage.

Thompson and Scott voted for an amendment to the Constitution that would have banned gay marriage in 2006. They also are among the 29 Democrats who didn’t sign a 2012 "friend of the court" brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA, though both voted against DOMA when it came up for a vote in 2011.

Nine of those 29 Democrats now say they support gay marriage: Reps. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), Mel Watt (D-N.C.), Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) and Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas).

“Like many Americans, my views have evolved over time and I believe that committed adults-- be them gay or straight-- deserve to marry the person they love,” Butterfield told The Hill in a statement this week that represented his first public support for gay marriage.

Hinojosa was in Congress in 2006 but didn’t vote on the amendment, and voted against DOMA in 2011. His office this week said he supported gay marriage, the first time he appears to have publicly done so.

Important: if you contribute to the DCCC, you are contributing to reelecting Blue Dog hatemongers like Matheson, McIntyre, Gallego and Barrow who vow to vote with the Republicans to make sure there will never be equality for the LGBT community. Is that where you want your money to go? May I suggest an alternative? Every candidate on the Blue America list is publicly committed to LGBT equality.

Read More

Far Right Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Is Lusting For A DC Comeback

The shady lobbyist husband wants the shady wife politician back in Congress

Blue Dogs like to say they're "just" fiscal conservatives. They are fiscal conservatives and almost always vote against economic justice, against the interests of working families and in the interests of the Wall Street banksters and corporations that subsidize their cushy careers. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin was a 3 term Rep from South Dakota and Blue Dog chairman until she was defeated, 48.1% to 45.9%, in the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010. She managed to amass one of the most right-wing voting records of any Democrat in Congress-- and not just on fiscal conservatism. She could almost always be counted on to back the Republicans on nearly their entire reactionary agenda. Let's take LGBT equality, since it's so much in the news lately. She's wasn't just against equality. There is no other way to describe Stephanie Herseth Sandlin than as a vicious homophobic bigot and hatemonger and dedicated, gratuitous enemy of LGBT families.

In September, 2004, soon after Herseth was elected to Congress, the Republicans proposed a Constitutional Amendment to prevent gays and lesbians from ever marrying anywhere inside the United States, regardless of what any states decided. It failed to get a 2/3s majority in the House but did "well," 227-186. 191 Republicans voted for it and 27 Republicans voted against it. 158 Democrats (+ Independent Bernie Sanders) voted against it and 36 Democrats voted with the GOP majority. Herseth was one of them, of course. Almost all of the Democratic bigots and hatemongers who voted for the amendment that day have since been defeated or otherwise driven out of politics, some in primaries, some in general elections and at least one so he could serve time in prison on bribery charges, conservatism and corruption being historically inseparable.

The only Democrats still serving in Congress today who voted for the Anti-Gay Constitutional Amendment are Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog/New Dem-TN), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Nick Rahall (WV), David Scott (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA), and Bennie Thompson (MS). The rest no longer have political careers (unless you consider lobbying a political career). At the time Herseth was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that "I agree with the President [George W. Bush] on this issue. Marriage should be between a man and a woman."

And the Republicans and their allies didn't give up in 2004. Two years later, hatemonger Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) was back with another constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality. Herseth was still waving her "I Hate Homos" flag from the backbenches and was one of 27 Democrats-- again almost all Blue Dogs who, like herself, went on to defeat at the hands of grassroots Democrats unwilling to bother voting for reactionaries in 2010.

Of course, it's not just on equality that Herseth Sandlin is unqualified to run for office as a Democrat. She worked with the GOP to try to sabotage both health care reform and environmental legislation, voting against both the Affordable Care Act and Cap-and-Trade, and she was a shill for the NRA the entire time she served in the House. They gave her $5,000 during her 2004 campaign and supported her with hefty contributions against Republicans every time she ran. Besides giving her money flat out, the NRA Political Victory Fund endorsed her and spent $16,889 in 2010 on independent expenditures for her. Yesterday Greg Sargent did a column about wealthy Democratic donors who have had it with NRA shills like Herseth Sandlin and would no longer contribute to their campaigns. Kenneth Lerer of NY and David Bohnett of L.A. are done being suckered by right-wing, pro-NRA Democrats and the money faucet is shut. Hopefully, they're both savvy enough to figure out when they donate to the DSCC and the DNC that money goes right into the campaigns of faithless Democrats like Herseth Sandlin. Last year alone, Bohnett contributed $219,500 to Democratic candidates and PACs. In the same period Lerer gave over $80,000, including $30,800 to the DNC.

Normal Democrats in South Dakota, including several county chairmen, are circulating a petition to draft U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson, the son of Senator Tim Johnson, who's stepping down, well aware that Herseth Sandlin is a proven loser who, as a candidate, will simply hand the Senate seat over to the GOP.

We believe that South Dakota needs someone in the U.S. Senate who will continue and expand upon Sen. Tim Johnson’s record of fighting for everyday people in Congress – even when that means standing up to big health insurance companies, Wall Street executives, Ag corporations, and oil tycoons.

We need a senator who will stand up for core Democratic values-- someone we can rely on to do the right thing without fear, especially when it comes to fighting for people who work for a living.

We need someone who believes that the role of government is to help people, and who is not afraid to ask the rich to pay their fair share. Someone who will make smart investments in our future and grow the middle class.

We believe Brendan Johnson should run for Senate.

As South Dakota’s U.S. Attorney, Brendan is our state's chief federal law enforcement officer. He has used that power to fight for the little guy.

Under Brendan Johnson’s leadership, South Dakota is the national leader in cracking down on deadbeat dads-- with over 50 percent of the nation's total federal prosecutions happening in South Dakota. Brendan Johnson was named 2013 Prosecutor of the Year by groups combating violence against women. And Johnson has played a national role in fighting on behalf of Native Americans.

Read More