Cuellar and the dark, mean establishment won - this time. Jacobin: "This loud and unified labor veto of Henry Cuellar didn’t sway the Democratic establishment. Although principled liberals like Elizabeth Warren, Pramila Jayapal, and Julian Castro joined Bernie Sanders and AOC in backing Cisneros, House leaders were willing to throw abortion rights, the environment, and even labor under the bus just to avoid expanding the Squad and prevent another Berniecrat from joining Congress."

 And Jacoabin named names - the usual perps

07.30.2022 - Antiabortion Democrat Henry Cuellar Is Now Seeking to Gut Labor Rights --By Liza Featherstone

Henry Cuellar, the conservative, antiabortion Democratic congressman — who Nancy Pelosi called a “fighter for hardworking families” — has shocked the labor movement with a radical bill seeking to eviscerate workers’ rights.

That's right and I bet your parents from the pre-Clinton days can remember when the Democratic Party was synonymous with the aims and politics of labor leaders. We call those, "The good old days." Continuing from the item's start -

Representative Henry Cuellar, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, has introduced a bill eviscerating labor rights that would make the Koch brothers proud.

Cuellar’s bill bears a gaslighting moniker: the Worker Flexibility and Choice Act — joining the Clear Skies Act and the Class Action Fairness Act in the annals of bills whose names are the exact opposite of their actual intent.

Cosponsored with Trumpian Republican Congresswomen Elise Stefanik and Michelle Steel, the bill creates whole new ways for employers to get out of paying minimum wage and overtime, extending the gig economy’s stress and chaos to millions more workers. As employment law professor Veena Dubal of University of California Hastings Law put it on Twitter, this bill would “make earning a living nearly impossible” for workers without bargaining power.

Cuellar, who represents Texas’s Twenty-Eighth District, gets significant funding from Koch organizations. That’s not surprising, since he’s been working to destroy Americans’ already fragile workplace rights for years. The scandal is that the Democratic national leadership fought hard to help him get elected. They did this not in a general election — against a Republican who might well have been even worse — but in a primary against a challenger, Jessica Cisneros, an immigration rights lawyer backed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Justice Democrats.

What’s even more confounding is that the Democratic leadership knew what they were getting with Cuellar. Not only is he the most antichoice Democrat in the federal government, as well as a favorite of the fossil fuel industry — Cuellar has made no secret of his anti-labor politics. Last year, Cuellar voted against the PRO Act, which would have made it easier for workers to organize unions.

Cisneros supported the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and the PRO Act. Sensibly, the most anti-worker forces lined up behind Cuellar, including the US Chamber of Commerce. Joining them were Nancy Pelosi, Jim Clyburn, Hakeem Jeffries, and Steny Hoyer.

Although unions too often back centrist incumbents over left challengers who are better on labor issues, this was not the case in Cuellar’s race against Cisneros. [...] This was Cisneros’s second challenge to Cuellar, and in the last two primary cycles, the Communications Workers of America and the Service Employees International Union backed Cisneros, as did progressive groups with labor backing, like the Working Families Party. This year, labor was especially incensed by his opposition to the PRO Act. The Texas AFL-CIO supported Cisneros. Other unions supporting her included the United Farm Workers, National Nurses United, and, on the local level, United Steelworkers District 13, UNITE HERE Local 23, and the San Antonio AFL-CIO Central Labor Council.

[Headline paragraph ...]

The Democratic leadership proved that they didn’t care about workers in this race. Despite organized labor’s clear rejection of Henry Cuellar, and his own equally clear rejection of workers’ interests with his PRO Act vote, they not only endorsed him but worked extra hard for him. Nancy Pelosi continued to defend him as a “valued member of our caucus,” while distancing herself from his abortion position. Pelosi even recorded a robocall for him, calling Cuellar a “fighter for hardworking families.” House majority leader Steny Hoyer also stood up for Cuellar. House Democratic Caucus chair Hakeem Jeffries, when asked, changed the subject back to himself and his own record. (House leaders did not have to defend Cuellar’s anti-labor politics to the press because, disgracefully, they weren’t asked about that.) House majority whip Jim Clyburn flew to Texas to campaign and rally with Cuellar against Cisneros days after the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked.

Clyburn at the time said the party shouldn’t have “litmus tests” on abortion. This labor bill — and Cuellar’s anti-labor history — highlights the deceptive absurdity of such statements: candidates with reactionary abortion politics are almost always reactionary on labor issues, too, and Cuellar is no exception.

Cuellar’s bill is backed by an unsavory anti-worker lobbying group called the Center for Workforce Innovation (CWI), whose [...] members are large retail, trucking, tech, telecom, and construction companies, including some of the worst employers in America, like Amazon, Walmart, Uber, and DoorDash. The CWI’s agenda is a radical assault on the legal concepts underlying employee protection, chillingly parallel to the Supreme Court’s recent napalming of reproductive choice, the environment, and voting rights. Cuellar’s bill would give the CWI much of what they are seeking, and the group has only been around since 2019.

Cuellar only beat Cisneros by 289 votes, so every bit of support from the Democratic establishment helped. [...]

And that's the facts. Naming the perps. This, from Down With Tryranny -

The final vote came Friday evening at 6:30 as the House voted 217-213 to pass a modest assault weapons ban. 5 reactionary Democrats voted with the Republicans against it. If not for two Republicans voting aye— Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) and Chris Jacobs (NY)— it would have failed. The Democrats who voted for the continued slaughter of American school children:

• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)

• Jared Golden (Blue Dog-ME)

• Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX)

• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)

• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)

Schrader was already convincingly defeated by Democrats in his Oregon district and without the interference on his behalf by Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Jeffries and their allies, Cuellar would have been as well. Kind is retiring voluntarily, knowing he would probably not win reelection and both Golden and Gonzalez are in deep jeopardy in November and unlikely to be able to solidify the Democratic base in their districts.

Mark Neumann is the progressive running for the western Wisconsin congressional seat Kind has decided to give up. Predictably, Kind is supporting another reactionary like himself, Brad Pfaff, a conservative state senator.

[...]

 Ballotpedia gives the Cook Partisan Index for Texas HD 28

click image see Texas 28th as D+5

 

 In fairness to Dem. leadership, there might have been a worry of losing the incumbent resulting in a Republican win. A Hispanic woman, progressive, vs a Hispanic man, the incumbent, conservative, but both Democratic Party candidates seems a toss-up. However, Ballotpedia indicates the district has a history of having favored Republican Presidential candidates for a decade or more.

(Crabgrass has been unimpressed with most Dem Pres offerings, 2012 (after four years of HOPE for CHANGE), 2016 and 2020, going lesser evil 2012, third party 2016 (while favoring Dem lesser evil choices more locally), and Biden 2020 (clear lesser evil).)

But for leadership to have used all that heavy artillery against union preference, it does seem to be open war against progress as a bottom line. When the money buys Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, progress just gets in folks' way. Or that seems the message.  

May Cuellar lose this time, big time, with Cisneros supporters pissed off and voting their feelings. Things like that have to happen, even if it ends up turning the House majority Republican. Forced learning sometimes is the only answer. Clearly with this current leadership, Jeffries set up to succeed Pelosi, it is "Gotta teach" long term.

While "Smug Alito" rage has ebbed at Crabgrass, the burn lingers. The man wrote garbage in killing Roe, and thinks he is hot stuff. But in this post I will not bash the court, myself. Read on. UPDATED

DWT, from two days ago:

 

Midnight Meme Of The Day! Roberts' 9 Seats Of Tyranny

by Noah

Yeah, it would be damn hard to put that trash in the proper receptacle now. And that's not even considering the lack of will on the part of a weenie like Schumer even if a realistic means were now available. The horse has left the barn and blown the rusty hinges off the door on the way. Soon Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Clusterphuck Team Captain Roberts will be handing out promotional wire hangers to visiting guests who come to take the tour. Alito's a crazy old fart who dreams of flogging and burning non-existent witches. Thomas sits in his office thumbing through sticky old porn mags. Kavanaugh drinks vast quantities of beer. Lordy, who knows what the other 3 of the Nazi 6 are doing in their spare time. Just trying to think up new ways to gain a legacy of tearing the country to shreds, I suppose.

But do we really need to be wedded to the number 9? The idea of 9 Supreme Court justices took hold back in the 19th century where republicans like to live. [...] Only one number has not changed since the 19th century, i.e. the number of people sitting on the Supreme Court. We are now well into the 21st century. 9 is the most antiquated number in our farcical judicial system. Is there not a budget for 4 more chairs, or do we have to wait 2 more centuries before we get 13 justices to match the number of Courts of Appeals?

But sadly Joe Biden would now be picking four additions, and that congers sad aspects. And Schumer, Manchin and Sinema raise little hope while McConnell and Graham would vote along with Minnesota's non-dynamic duo of Senators.

Mush and not progress would likely be the addition. Yet mush would at least temper the likes of what's there now. The present mush in the White House does trump Trump. There is that tiny truth to clutch onto. And have you noticed, the MAGA hat huckster never has been willing or able to identify a when, as great, to seek again.

The I like Ike 50s? War years? Tea Pot Dome oil scandals? 1913, birth of the creature from Jekyll Island? The Dust Bowl? Dead Kennedys? Vietnam?

The Court was something during the Warren years. Now it is the court. Earning lower case status. The roberts court? No, the Leonard Leo court. Tell it like it is.

____________UPDATE____________

DWT again, with upbeat thinking, presently likely to go nowhere, but offering long term promise - DWT's title: Reforming The Supreme Court? Step One Is Now Underway

The item discusses a term limit and term cycling idea, in bill form, which has much merit conceptually and as a practically needed reform step now, if feasible.

https://hankjohnson.house.gov/sites/hankjohnson.house.gov/files/documents/SCOTUS_TERMS_xml.pdf

 That 3p item, which readers should check for its details, has a money quote:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act of 2022’’.

 "Modernization" is a great euphemism for "reform." DWT text:

Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Hank Johnson (D-GA), and 4 senior members of the committee— David Cicilline (D-RI), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Karen Bass (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-TN)— plus Ro Khanna (D-CA) from the Oversight and Reform Committee introduced a bill, [...] to start the reform process of the Supreme Court. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is introducing the same bill in the Senate.

This afternoon, Khanna told me that "Six extremist justices trying to undermine our democracy and fundamental freedoms shouldn’t get to remain on the court for life. Term limits will help rebalance the court and ensure impartiality. I’m glad to work with Rep. Hank Johnson to create term limits for Supreme Court justices-- a measure that is overwhelmingly popular with the American people. Let's pass this bill and my Supreme Court Term Limits Act." [the below polling data are compelling]

click the image to enlarge and read

Polling has shown that two-thirds of Americans support term limits for Supreme Court justices and this bill lays out an orderly process for achieving just that. This is what the bill would do:

• Establish terms of 18 years in regular active service for Supreme Court justices, after which justices who retain the office will assume senior status;

• Establish regular appointments of Supreme Court justices in the first and third years following a presidential election as the sole means of Supreme Court appointments;

• Require current justices to assume senior status in order of length of service on the Court as regularly appointed justices receive their commissions;

• Preserve life tenure by ensuring that senior justices retired from regular active service continue to hold the office of Supreme Court justice, including official duties and compensation; and

• Require the Supreme Court justice who most recently assumed senior status to fill in on the Court if the number of justices in regular active service falls below nine.

The sponsors have said that their bill will “restore legitimacy and independence to the nation’s highest court… Five of the six conservative justices on the bench were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and they are now racing to impose their out-of-touch agenda on the American people, who do not want it. Term limits are a necessary step toward restoring balance to this radical, unrestrained majority on the court.”

 [italics added] Great thinking if it can become a reality. Yet - That final paragraph, at the italicized text, shines onto another needed reform. The electoral college itself would be less a burden if the number of electors accorded each state were equal to House seats, two senators for Wyoming not being the same per population headcount as two for Pennsylvania, so taking senators out of elector counts would be one minor reform. 

However, states not in play but likely firmly holding regular voter majorities for one party or the other, have voters with less input than voters in contested states; i.e., a switch to  popular vote count as the determination of a Presidential win would eliminate Presidents elected while losing the popular vote. 

Electoral college reform would require Constitutional amendment, which would be opposed by enough low-population states to be stymied, given how difficult it is to generate extreme consensus needed to amend the thing.

Ultimately, however, even reform of  Presidential elections to make them hinge on popular vote might prove feasible, and it would make one-person-one-vote equivalence the governing fairest norm. 

Candidates could no longer concentrate time and money on six or so swing states with huge elector numbers to swing an election, but would have to give time and honor to every single state and its people, equally, if popular vote were to rule. 

A downside there, money would even be a bigger determinant of election success if spending nationwide had to be spread out, to equal out. 

The deep pockets would still run the propaganda machine, MSM included, so "fairer" would only be a somewhat thing. Representative democracy will always be imperfect, but surely could be reformed to be better in U.S. of A Presidential elections. 

Compromises made centuries ago to satisfy thirteen sovereign entities joining into a federation stronger than a prior confederation happened in a different world from us, today. (Not that the wooden heads on the Supreme Court care to give that fact any credence whatsoever. You know the ones meant. "Originalists" they call themselves. "Strict constructionists." We can call them "dissemblers," since they are that above anything else.)

 

 

Alito in the news.

 Slate. Recent. Troublesome. Read it. What a piece of work.

An opening image Slate chose well. Tremble when seeing a smile smirk like that:

And when you wish to keen about Trump having been the worse President ever, look at who appointed this aberrant human to high office. You do not need much of a quote. Wikipedia will do.

President George W. Bush announces that Judge Samuel Alito is his Supreme Court nominee during a press conference on October 31, 2005.

On October 31, 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Samuel Alito for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Alito's nomination was confirmed by a 58–42 vote of the United States Senate on January 31, 2006.

Alito was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at the time of his nomination to the Court. He had been appointed to that position by the president's father, President George H. W. Bush in 1990. Leonard Leo played a crucial role in successfully shepherding Alito's appointment through the Senate.^[1]

Trump was not a war monger. Trump was not a neocon. Trump moved to end a war kept kicked down the road by the two of those aberrant humans. 

Trump did not institute a freedom-sucking "Patriot" Act. 

Trump, by comparison, was merely a harmless blowhard, re that father/son disaster show.

NEXT - That Wiki footnote-1 links here. The most compelling paragraph of that linked item:

Leo’s role in the judicial nominations has drawn fierce criticism from liberals. Nan Aron, who is the longtime president of the Alliance for Justice, which advocates for a progressive judiciary, told me, “The Federalist Society has for years been singularly focussed [sic] on building a farm team of judicial nominees who subscribe to a philosophy that is hostile to the advancement of social and economic progress in the country. Behind the scenes, during Republican Administrations, they are very engaged in identifying and recruiting for judges candidates who are ultra-conservatives—who are opposed to our rights and liberties across the board, whether it’s women, the environment, consumer protections, worker protections.” Gorsuch is likely to be only the first of Leo’s Trump Administration appointees: he is preparing for yet more vacancies on the Supreme Court, and also finding candidates for some of the hundred-plus vacancies on the lower courts, deepening his imprint on the judiciary.

Catholic opposition to abortion is the lightning rod for the full spectrum of the mischief, taking the bright thundering energy hit, while the more sinister dimension of Federalist Society judge picking is they pick aberrant dregs who are dead wrong nasty on everything else too. Not just abortion haters. Haters of the people and all the good that could be done for the people, and undone against the people by a Draconian hostile court full of right wing whack jobs.  

Which is what we have now. Moreover, as the Slate article shows, they are super-arrogant about self-love of their deficiencies. Think too of the Thomas spouses. The oil baron's daughter. The over-ambitious Kavanaugh cramdown. 

Rabid whack jobs. 

What next? 

They are only getting started. A hell is just lifting off the ground this Court term. Wait for the main show. The encore. The rain of hundred page sophistry after hundred page sophistry. A paper downpour. A paper fucking for us.

And they largely are young, holding office for life or until choosing to step aside.

Strib local content: Minnesota U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips said he doesn't want Joe Biden to run for president again in 2024, one of the first Democrats in Congress to bluntly call for him to step aside and for a "new generation" of leadership in the White House. [...] "I have respect for Joe Biden, I think he has — despite some mistakes and some missteps, despite his age — I think he's a man of decency, of good principle, of compassion, of empathy and of strength," Phillips said. "But to answer your question directly, which I know is quite rare, Chad, no, I don't. I think the country would be well-served by a new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats to step up."

The headline is from two early Strib paragraphs.

The headline says it all. Dean Philips is honest about the "please stand down," but bullshits about Biden's character/record.

That, "... new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats to step up" business sounds great, but there is a Devil in details. Like, who, exactly?

There are many a slip twixt cup and lip. Yes, a good, possibly excellent ticket could be put together. The problems with that, Clyburn, Schumer, Pelosi, Hoyer,  Manchin, Harris, Hakeem Jeffries, Big Oil/Coal, Wall Street, Big Pharma, Military Industrial Complex, billionaires not wanting to be fairly taxed, Big Insurance, you can name the rest.

I still think a Steve Bullock-Cori Bush ticket, or a Jay Inslee-Cori Bush ticket would have several bases touched in terms of geo-diversity, diversity of opinion, racial balance and general basic, sound, decency of each candidate. 

Conservative Dems would have little to shoot at with Bullock or Inslee, while both are multiple notches above Biden, who never was much but a tool of money. Cori Bush, she got rid of the Clay indecency in Missouri politics, while keeping race-balanced, gender-altered clearly improved district representation. She is sincere. She is not Kamala Harris. She is a winner. She is progressive. She is black. She balances a ticket.

Did I say, progressive?

If a progressive at the top ticket spot could survive the previously named impediments, all the better. But it would be a dream and not a reality.

Neither Bullock, Inslee, nor Cori Bush owe any deep pocket force anything. That alone would be refreshing, unique, and a cause to expect establishment killing of the idea of any of the three on a ticket. The party of Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden simply has not been the party of decency and progress. 

BOTTOM LINE: Dean Phillips, bravo and a most generous hat tip for saying it out loud to the press. Now, we citizens concerned with detail ask: Name names.

Surely not-ready-for-prime-time Kamala Harris - not "the one."

Phillips did say, "... new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats to step up." That means not letting Jim Clyburn (or either Clinton) have any say in things; Clyburn's simply not amenable to "well-prepared, dynamic" anything. Else excellent Barbara Lee would be holding the leadership spot in the House that went to smooth Hakeem Jeffries. The Clintons? Becoming multimillionaires as nothing beyond smooth, opportunistic career politicians says it all about the Clintons. Speeches to Goldman Sachs, travel in Epstein's airplane.

There is just too much top-down mediocrity in the Democratic Party to have much hope that Phillip's postulated "... new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats" can step up, without being unceremoniously stomped down hard by old guard fossilized bought indecent idiocy.

Gavin Newsom? Get real - Just say no to chickenshit. At least he'd not be stomped down hard by his own kind.

________UPDATE________

Yes. Gavin Newsom would be a lesser evil to Ron DeSantis. And yes, Gavin Newsome did indirectly tell the world that by running an ad about himself in Florida. But that was grandstanding and not substance. Has Newsom already been anointed by inner party choice? Likely not. But the knives clearly are being sharpened against a Biden second term. 

More info is needed, but Biden might well prove a lesser evil to Gavin Newsom. We have yet to see. San Fran has already given us Pelosi, Harris, and Diane Finstein (courtesy of Dan White). That well may have run dry.

 

MN Guv GOP candidate says he was sincere before, is sincere now, and has changed his Draconian abortion hating position slightly. Presumably he and campaign handlers do internal polling.

 Strib link. Love sincerity. 

Well he is a physician. Why can't a physician learn a better view toward a safe and lawful medical procedure? Did he say he'd practice according to his "new" awakening? "I will alter my medical practice accordingly," yes/no?

MPR has an online item with a photo of sincerity. 

Neither that MPR item, nor Strib's item were worth my time. So I read neither.

Avoid humbug. REELECT WALZ.

The latest left.mn post by Dan Burns looks at AIPAC, where Crabgrass adds a look at Hakeem Jeffries.

 Dan's Post, in part:

AIPAC is looking to screw progressives in Democratic primaries. And it’s sometimes working.

AIPAC is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It does all that it can on behalf of the hard-right wing in Israel, here in the U.S. And this is really, really annoying, to say the very least.

“Until leaders in the Democratic Party stand up and say this is unacceptable to take this money or any money like this, or until election laws are changed, the opportunity is there for a group like AIPAC to do this,” said Logan Bayroff, vice president of communications at J Street, the pro-Israel nonprofit group that advocates for diplomacy-based solutions. “We don’t know where it ends. I wouldn’t be surprised to find other Republican-aligned groups deciding to play in Democratic primaries going forward.”

AIPAC’s role in Democratic elections has changed drastically in just a handful of months. For many years, the group claimed to be a bipartisan entity, and didn’t officially endorse candidates. Until this election cycle, the group didn’t even have a super PAC; now, it’s on pace to spend nearly $20 million in the 2022 Democratic primary cycle alone, making it by far the most influential individual political group in Democratic electoral politics.
(The American Prospect)

Annoying, infuriating, and so forth, but not at all surprising. Assuming that the combination of an extremist Supreme Court, extremist gerrymandered legislatures, greedheads, and ineffectual ”opposition” from the Democratic Party establishment doesn’t lead to the end of legitimate democracy in this country [...] it’s pretty much inevitable that we’ll see more and more conservative-to-”moderate” moneybags going after progressive candidates in primaries, and in any other way that they can.

[...]

[italics added] Dan is hesitant to name names of any inner party Dems as outright hostile to progress, saying "ineffectual 'opposition' " instead.

Crabgrass has no hesitation. 

............................................................

DuckDuckGo websearch (past year) = hakeem jeffries progressives hostility

Googling the same websearch, first hit, Jacobin, "No, Progressive Challengers Are Not “Far Left” by Arthur Tarley - 10.04.2021 --- subheadlined

The Democratic establishment just launched a new PAC to go to war against progressive candidates who challenge incumbents — and the media is doing everything they can to help.

.........................................

First, Jacobin, (from Oct. 2021),then looking at a few of the first listed Duck-returned items -

It’s not even 2022 yet and the mainstream media has already come to the rescue of the Democratic establishment, helping them try to crush next year’s progressive challengers. Prominent outlets like the Washington Post and NBC News are now using the term “far left” to describe progressive primary challengers to incumbent Democrats.

“Far left” is a clear signifier of an extreme group opposite the “far right.” Yet progressive primary candidates are in no way extreme. They are not the converse of the actually extreme, fringe “far right” of Trumpism, neo-Nazism, and QAnon. The media’s use of “far-left” foretells mainstream outlets ramping up negative framing of progressives in 2022 primaries.

The label appeared in both Washington Post and NBC News articles announcing Team Blue PAC, a new political action committee with the singular goal of protecting incumbent Democrats against primary challenges. House Democratic Caucus chair Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus member Rep. Josh Gottheimer, and Rep. Terri Sewell formed the PAC in June, naming two races with Justice Democrats–backed candidates as top targets for their pro-incumbent spending.

What establishment Democrats and Washington Post and NBC News editors are telling readers and voters is that advocacy for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and housing for all is some fringe “far-left” agenda. Jeffries’s spokesperson called progressive challengers the “extreme left,” then corporate media parroted the establishment smear in its reporting. This is another example of how the posture of the mainstream media and Democratic Party toward progressive policies is extremely hostile, demonizing, and not unlike the GOP’s attitudes toward progressives in Congress. They all want to conjure images in voters’ minds of rioters breaking windows in the name of “anarchy.”

Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Danny Davis, the two incumbents currently backed by Team Blue PAC, are being challenged by Justice Democrats Rana Abdelhamid and Kina Collins. Some have claimed that, because Maloney and Davis are paper cosponsors of Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, they represent the bastion of progressivism. But their decades of inaction in Congress and millions of campaign dollars from Wall Street, Big Pharma, health insurance PACs, and oil companies very clearly demonstrate the opposite.

Jeffries is a paper cosponsor of Medicare for All, too, yet consistently supports the candidate in Democratic primaries who doesn’t support single-payer health care. He never publicly advocates for it. Political observers understand that many lawmakers sign onto these bills solely as a cynical ploy to protect themselves from progressive primaries, and, helpfully for them, the mainstream media decides to ignore this reality in its reporting. A result is that most incumbent Democrats are deemed “progressive,” and the only room to the left, apparently, is the “far left.”

The Team Blue PAC farce continues, with Jeffries’s spokesperson also saying, “It should come as no surprise that the chair of the House Democratic Caucus plans to support the reelection of Members of the House Democratic Caucus who are working hard to enact President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda.” But Gottheimer, one of the three behind Team Blue, is one of the nine House Democrats threatening to sink Joe Biden’s big reconciliation spending bill if the House doesn’t first vote on the so-called bipartisan infrastructure bill. Yet Gottheimer, clearly the very definition of a roadblock to Biden’s agenda, gets to be part of Team Blue PAC because none of this is about policies or legislation. It’s about protecting Democrats already in power. And protecting the status quo for the donor class. And the Washington Post and NBC News are giving the establishment their backing by labeling their opponents as a fringe group.

It does not take a political theorist to find the ideological differences between incumbents like Jeffries, Maloney, and Davis, and primary challengers like Abdelhamid and Collins. Political reporters and editors should be up to the modest challenge. Because there simply is no “far left” or “extreme left” in Congress, whatever those terms are supposed to mean.

Single-payer health care and investments in public housing are not the other side of “far-right” neo-Nazi militias. The choice by Jeffries, mainstream media, and others to designate progressive challengers as “extreme” is one way these entities try to quell threats to existing power structures in the Democratic Party and the United States as a whole. Jeffries is concerned about his future as potential speaker of the House and about campaign contributions to the Party. The real estate developers, Wall Street executives, and insurance PACs funding his wing of the party don’t want to see Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, or a homes guarantee, because it would disrupt their profiteering. Corporate media outlets pushing the same narrative don’t want to see the status quo rocked either. The reality doesn’t matter to them — only the capitalist interests that their myth serves.

The narrative spins together much like it did against Bernie Sanders in both of his presidential runs. In 2020, Bernie was considered the extreme candidate, but the establishment and media also convinced voters that all Democratic candidates in the primary wanted universal health care, just in different ways. In reality, the only plan in America for universal health care is Medicare for All, and no matter how much Joe Biden said he wanted universal health care, it was a plain lie.

It’s not shocking to see the mainstream media serving the interests of the powerful in Congress. It’s disconcerting, though, to see outlets trot out a loaded, negative term in their reporting as if it were fact — fully accepting the framing of politicians such as Jeffries and Gottheimer who have a stake in painting progressives as extreme. The establishment has been building to this moment since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her upset victory over now–corporate lobbyist Joe Crowley in 2018. They were caught off-guard then and have taken primary losses since — most notably Cori Bush’s and Jamaal Bowman’s upset victories against Democratic incumbents.

But the establishment is only putting more money and energy into stopping progressive primary challengers. The Democratic Party has big money, better-prepared primary campaigns, and now, corporate media ready to push the establishment’s exact framing of the challengers trying to take power away from them.

Now, Duck-search returned items - 

downwithtyranny.com -

 I want you to look at this little box directly below from ProgressivePunch. It shows the two members of Congress who have the most outstanding progressive voting records. They are just fractionally different from each other but the two close-to-perfect records belong to Marie Newman from Illinois and Andy Levin from Michigan. Both members were redistricted into battles with corporate incumbents with more centrist, GOP-lite records, New Dem full-time money-raisers Sean Casten and Haley Stevens.

It should come as no surprise that Hakeem Jeffries' anti-progressive hit-squad has chosen Newman and Levin-- along with Rashida Tlaib-- as his first incumbent targets for elimination. He is the truest political descendent of Rahm Emanuel in over a decade. He has AIPAC's sleazy, Republican-funded SuperPAC, United Democracy Project, and Mark Mellman's even sleazier Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) putting hundreds of thousand of dollars into deceitful media smears against the 3 candidates. Congressional observers expect that to grow into millions of dollars in the next couple of weeks.

 [...] I've been doing a lot of writing about this anti-progressive jihad orchestrated by Jeffries in the last month. If Jeffries and his allies succeed in defeating these 3 members it will send a chill through already shaky members, a chill that makes the point that being too loud and too unequivocal about core progressive values in a career-ender. That's exactly what Jeffries, Mellman, AIPAC and their conservative sewers money donors what to do. I wonder if the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC plans to spend any money defending their 3 members-- or if they're just too preoccupied helping conservative Republican Robert Garcia who is currently masquerading as a Democrat. I know Mark Pocan is one of Jeffries' close allies but if the CPC doesn't fight back now, they might as well close up shop or just join the New Dems.

Jeffries and his allies have already spent millions taking on Nina Turner (OH), Summer Lee (PA), Erica Smith (NC), Nida Allam (NC), Jessica Cisneros (TX), Daniel Lee (CA), Cristina Garcia (CA), David Canepa (CA), Amy Vilela (NV), Michelle Vallejo (TX), Omari Hardy (FL) and Attica Scott (KY) with mixed results but going after incumbents is a much more drastic thing to try-- especially for a divisive Wall Street owned-and-operated political hack like Hakeem Jeffries, who is slated to take over as Democratic Party congressional leader when Pelosi steps down. This was how his ally, Mellman's DMFI started last week. It's just the beginning:

 

 Rolling Stone - 

A pack of progressive candidates have crashed this year’s Democratic primaries, hoping to unseat incumbents and push the party to the left. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the fifth-ranking Democrat in the House, has other plans.

Jeffries and two of his House Democrat allies on Wednesday rolled out the first slate of endorsements from Team Blue PAC, a political action committee intended to protect incumbents from intraparty attacks. [...]

“It’s important to support effective legislators for delivering for the American people in partnership with the Biden administration,” Jeffries says. “We want to support common-sense members who are delivering for their districts and helping advance the Democratic agenda to create jobs and cut costs for their constituents,” adds Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), another Team Blue PAC co-founder.

The primary challengers and their allies see things differently — and think Jeffries and his allies should take a different tack in protecting their majority. “It is extremely alarming that critical resources from Democratic Party leadership are going to protect incumbents from having to face any competition in deep-blue districts instead of protecting the swing seats we’re in danger of losing in November,” says Waleed Shahid, the communications director of Justice Democrats, the left-wing group that supported Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and other successful progressives in their House primary runs.

These primary endorsements are the latest front in the fight over the future of the Democratic Party.

In short, Rolling Stone reports: Jeffries, on behalf of the inner party big wigs, are specifically sniping at progressives. In turn the progressives outlook is - solidly strong Dem districts with conservative incumbents need reform with new representation in line with what the people who in polling strongly say what they want. They say the inner party money should go to conservative Dems in more conservative "swing districts" if holding a Dem majority is a true leadership goal rather than strangling out progress. 

[italics added] progressivescorecard.com -

Congressmen Jeffries is sitting pretty. After narrowly defeating Barbra Lee for Caucus Chair, he is now the #4 Democrat in Congress. With the top 3 Dems all in their 80s, Jeffries (age 50) is poised to be the next Speaker of the House in the near future.

Jeffries is a tough nut to crack ideologically. On the plus side, he is a member of the Progressive Caucus, signed onto Medicare for All, and gets a progressive vote score is in the high 80s. He has even stuck his neck out a few times, voting to cut defense spending by 10% and refusing to back Pelosi's Patriot Act reauthorization. On the other hand, Jeffries has taken a lot of money from corporate interests and has a troubling history of supporting charter schools.

If this was the whole story, then we call this another example of a machine-style Democrat who made a necessary transition to the left in order to placate an emboldened progressive base. But, despite Jeffries' voting record, he has this troubling tendency of bashing any outside challenge to the party establishment. Jeffries is relentless on twitter when it comes to gloating over incumbent primary victories, and dismissive when challengers win. After Jamaal Bowman beat a high-ranking incumbent, Jeffries chalked it up to demographic change rather than an ideological inditement [sic] on Democratic leadership.

The New York electorate has been showing a rebellious streak of late when it comes to its treatment of incumbents, and clearly, Congressman Jeffries is worried about getting the Crowley treatment. [...]

One sentence stands out, "Jeffries is a tough nut to crack ideologically." The Jacoban author noted what he termed "paper" stances or memberships, or policy claims. "Ghost," or "falsified" might be synonyms. Actions speak louder than words.

 Continuing  the Duck-search returns - CNN kisses Jeffries ass. Common Dreams contrasts him to Barbara Lee, (who certainly would make a more palatable black female candidate than Harris, if that is the 2024 choice aside from Biden again).

The Atlalntic does a fair job of reporting:

[...]

Jeffries “wasn’t an insurgent from the left,” New York Communities for Change and the Sunrise Movement’s New York City chapter, two groups that have charged themselves with policing the boundaries of progressivism, insisted this spring in a document I obtained. Slightly rewriting history, the memo explained that “he defeated a dysfunctional and corrupt incumbent. Jeffries is charismatic, whip smart, hard-working, and extremely canny.” But the man who may go on to be the first Black speaker “is part of an establishment that works to marginalize transformational action when it threatens corporate power and a wealthy, virtually all-white elite.”

[...] One day in June, I stumbled onto a small political event on the Upper West Side. Speaking to the small crowd was Zephyr Teachout, a law professor who ran a 2014 primary race from the left for governor, a 2016 race for Congress in a swing district, and a 2018 primary for attorney general—and lost all three. When I asked her if Jeffries is a progressive, she frowned. I asked her to elaborate, but she wouldn’t speak on the record. Ask about Jeffries, and those who have declared themselves progressive leaders say he’s not one of them. Ask why he’s not a progressive, and they say they’re not sure, or that he seems to not be on their side. This is only exacerbated by the media coverage portraying Democratic politics as a story of exciting, committed insurgents versus the boring, compromised “establishment.” Jeffries has backed Medicare for All, though what he really supports is a public option for universal access to health care rather than the end of private insurance. He’s a reliable vote for nearly every progressive bill, and is already hoping that once Congress gets through the triage of pandemic recovery, it’ll be able to work on a Second Step Act, to build on the criminal-justice-reform First Step Act, which Trump signed in 2018.

[...] I told him about Teachout’s frown, and how it seemed to encapsulate the way he’s viewed now—a general sense of distaste from the left that he’s not one of them, though they can’t quite say why. “There’s a difference between progressive Democrats and hard-left democratic socialists,” he told me. “It’s not a distinction that I’m drawing. They draw that distinction. And so clearly, I’m a Black progressive Democrat concerned with addressing racial and social and economic injustice with the fierce urgency of now. That’s been my career, that’s been my journey, and it will continue to be as I move forward for however long I have an opportunity to serve. There will never be a moment where I bend the knee to hard-left democratic socialism.”

Jeffries likes that phrase, bend the knee. He took it from Game of Thrones. “Black progressives do tend to tackle issues first and foremost with an understanding that systemic racism has been in the soil of America for over 400 years,” he said. “Hard-left progressives tend to view the defining problem in America as one that is anchored in class. That is not my experience as a Black man in this country. And perhaps that’s where we have a difference of perspective.” Or perhaps, a number of Jeffries-wary activists told me, politicians on the left think he enjoys picking fights with them. Or perhaps, one Democratic representative who’s not close with Jeffries told me, they’re just expressing the natural suspicion that people who aren’t in leadership have of those who are.

A few days after meeting Jeffries in Brooklyn, I texted Waleed Shahid, the communications director for the Justice Democrats, the group that backed Ocasio-Cortez and is most identified with primarying longtime Democratic incumbents to jolt the party left. What’s the problem with Jeffries? I asked. Shahid sent a link to Jeffries’s political donations, which lists his top donors’ professions as securities and investment and real estate. I asked Jeffries about that. “It’s time for the virtue signalers to stop shadowboxing on social media,” he told me. “Recruit a candidate, put on the boxing gloves, get in the ring, and we can work this out on the ground in the Eighth Congressional District.”

So, he feels secure in his seat. So what? Is he part of the problem, or part of an answer? Money talking:

Here, here, here, here and here. In general there is a constant voice. Establishment investing, in Jeffries, over time, seemingly happy over time with return on investment.

BOTTOM LINE: Establishment money seldom, maybe never, buys progressive results.

__________BONUS UPDATE___________

Getting back to the start of the post, Dan Burns' posting at left.mn about The American Prospect's published unhappiness with AIPAC's recent political money investments, DWT is blunter on that theme:

AIPAC Is Now Essentially A Money Laundering Operation For GOP Cash To Disrupt Democratic Primaries

Regular readers of DWT already know this but early this morning Robert Reich confirmed what we already know, namely that AIPAC is no longer promoting Israel or battling antisemitism. It's using Republican dollars to battle progressives. If anything, AIPAC is now stirring up anti-Semitism in America. Reich began by recapping AIPAC’s big win against Donna Edwards, buying— by saturating television and radio with scurrilous ads “questioning her willingness to perform basic services for her constituents and to make the kinds of compromises necessary for legislative success”— the Democratic Party nomination for a run-of-the-mill corrupt lobbyist and AIPAC sock-puppet.

“Where” asked Reich, “did the money for those ads come from?” Along with the even shadier Democratic Majority for Israel, AIPAC spent a staggering $7 million defaming Edwards and boosting the sock-puppet. Both AIPAC and DMFI get their money from conservatives, primarily Republican conservatives eager to screw with Democratic primaries. AIPAC has also been rumored to be illegally taking money from right-wing Israeli sources as well. Much of the anti-progressive jihad mounted this cycle— both by the Israel lobby and the crypto-billionaires— is being coordinated and directed, from behind the curtain, by AIPAC and Wall Street pawn Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), whose puppet-masters have decided to install him as leader of the congressional Democratic Party by using fear and intimidation against easily intimidated and always fearful Democratic congressional caucus. Not even progressives are standing up for their colleagues, who are being picked off one by one. The Pocan-controlled Progressive Caucus PAC didn’t lifted a finger to protect their members being smeared by AIPAC and Hakeem Jeffries’ malfeasance coalition— no help for Marie Newman, no help for Andy Levin, no help for Rashida Tlaib, no help for Cori Bush. Why would any new progressive join the CPC at this point? The Blue Dogs and New Dems stand up for their members and fight for them. The CPC? What a joke!

What did Edwards do to deserve this degree of AIPAC enmity? Could it have been because she was an early supporter of a nuclear deal between Iran and five industrial countries, including the United States? Probably not, because that hardly distinguished her from most other Democrats. Besides, the Obama administration supported the deal. Was it because Edwards took a number of votes that expressed support for Palestinian rights and the resumption of a meaningful peace process? These were hardly outside of the mainstream.

So what was it? Dig deeper.

Remember, AIPAC never used to endorse candidates. Until this election cycle, it didn’t even have a super PAC. But it’s on the way to spending nearly $20 million in the 2022 Democratic primaries alone. That makes it the single most influential political group in Democratic electoral politics. And what’s the criterion for whom AIPAC supports in Democratic primaries?

If AIPAC were simply aiming to promote Israel or deter antisemitism, presumably it would be as active in Republican primaries as it is in Democratic ones. But it has barely spent a dime in Republican primaries— not even against Republican candidates who have been widely criticized for antisemitic comments. And its United Democracy Project super-PAC hasn’t spent a penny.

AIPAC hasn’t supported a Republican primary challenger to Marjorie Taylor Greene (who claimed that Jewish space lasers were behind California’s 2018 wildfires), for example. But AIPAC has endorsed Republican Scott Perry, who compared Democrats to Nazis.

The real criterion for AIPAC’s support or enmity in Democratic primaries seems to have more to do with which candidate is friendlier toward America’s moneyed interests and the Republican agenda. When Edwards was last a member of Congress, she backed single-payer health care and was one of the early champions of sweeping campaign finance reforms. Both irked big money. In the pending race between Haley Stevens and Andy Levin in Michigan’s 11th Congressional District, AIPAC is supporting Stevens (who has a history of fighting worker protections) against Levin (who is a labor champion).

AIPAC is on the way to becoming a Republican front group. Much of AIPAC’s trove is coming from Republican donors. In May, Republican billionaires Paul Singer and Bernie Marcus donated $1 million each to AIPAC’s super PAC. Marcus famously gave $7 million to President Trump’s campaign in 2016.

So far in this election cycle, AIPAC has endorsed over 100 Republican candidates who refused to certify the 2020 election results.

What to do about this?

First, Democrats must stop allowing AIPAC to be a Democratic kingmaker. The Democratic leadership in Congress must openly criticize AIPAC’s role in Democratic primaries. Democratic candidates should cease taking money from AIPAC in primaries and condemn candidates who do.

Second, all of us need to get behind campaign finance reforms that prevent big money from whatever source from corrupting our elections. Such reforms are possible notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s horrific Citizens United decision. The House has already passed legislation that would encourage small-dollar donations by matching them dollar-for-dollar with public financing. Like most other reforms, it’s been stalled in the Senate. We must elect Democrats to the Senate who will pass this.

From there the DWT post gets into endorsing and tub thumping for four deserving progressive candidates. Readers can follow the link if interested. It is a major insight, however, that AIPAC's PAC money is going against progressive Dems, while taking Republican money, but not endorsing any Repuiblicans, nor opposing the likes of MTG. There seems some mendacity in how AIPAC is pushing an agenda, what that agenda is, and how it is being funded - unless you dig deeply as DWT did. Otherwise, reading MSM and having a perhaps outdated view of how AIPAC operates can lead to a misunderstanding about today's politics.

 

Two Republican gutless wonders. Schultz and Wardlow. Ellison declines to appeal a correct district court decision. Those two piss and moan over it, with neither moving to intervene and take up an appeal. Total gutless. It's their chance to show their chops.

 Ellison made the sane choice. Zero likelihood that carefully drawn decision following precedent would be reversed. There is cost, no benefit, an easy decision to not contest a proper decision. However:

 Strib: 

Ellison's decision comes more than two weeks after a district court judge ruled many state laws restricting abortion access were unconstitutional, immediately blocking their enforcement. By not appealing, Ellison's move will indefinitely ensure expanded access to abortion in Minnesota, now a haven for the procedure in the Midwest following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

"I must consider the broad public interest in deciding whether to appeal any court outcome, including rulings related to the constitutionality of state laws," Ellison said in a lengthy statement about his decision. "The public interest includes a number of factors, including the likelihood of success of an appeal, the proper and careful use of state resources, the impact on other areas of state law, and the public's need for finality."

In his 140-page ruling, Ramsey District Judge Thomas Gilligan cited the 1995 state Supreme Court ruling in Doe v. Gomez, which found abortion access was a constitutional right and certain restrictions were a violation of the right to privacy. Ellison said he thought it was "unlikely" the state would get a different result if they appealed.

[...]  Abortion rights advocates are waiting to see if anyone will try to intervene in the case and appeal during the 60-day window following the July 11 ruling. In the meantime, they celebrated Ellison's decision, saying it will expand abortion access at a time when there's increased demand and a backlog of appointments in Minnesota.

[...] 

The top two GOP candidates for attorney general — Jim Schultz and Doug Wardlow — criticized Ellison's decision, saying they would appeal if they held the job.

"Yet another dereliction of duty by Keith Ellison. All motivated by his far-left politics," Schultz, the Republican-endorsed candidate, said in a Tweet on Thursday. "These bi-partisan statutes are clearly constitutional and Minnesota deserves an Attorney General who will stand up to activist judges."

Wardlow accused Ellison of "pushing his pro-abortion agenda" and said he would do everything in his power to defend the law, including appealing decisions when they don't go "the right way."

Ellison's office has been in litigation in the case, known as Doe v. Minnesota, for more than three years, after abortion rights groups sued to try and cancel more than a dozen restrictions in one fell swoop.

He estimated his staff has spent more than 4,000 hours and upwards of $600,000 defending those laws. Ellison said he makes appeal decisions on a case-by-case basis, declining to appeal rulings in other cases. DFL Gov. Tim Walz, listed as a defendant in the case, has said the ruling was "clear" and wouldn't ask Ellison to appeal.

"I have made clear throughout that my personal view has been that the challenged laws were not good public policy," Ellison said. "I have nonetheless vigorously defended those laws."

Ellison says, in effect, enough is enough.

Those two Republican wimps grump but don't have the bal wherewithal to do anything but crab. Action Jackson, they ain't. Neither proves himself fit for the job, nor really caring beyond getting the ticket punched, "We disagree, we say he has a duty to perform a useless act. Shame, shame, shame."

If either really feels it is a winnable appeal, jump in and prove it, or shut tf up.

It really is galling to see complaint instead of back-up-your-carping action. It's a dog of an appeal, a loser, they both know it, and yet throw stones. Would a more honest candidate behave differently? Either not moan and groan, or intervene, but not what both of the two do?

_________UPDATE________

After settling down a bit with the outrage waning, another Strib item (worth reading in full), notes in ending:

Minnesota reported 10,136 abortions in 2021, a 2% increase from 2019. Ellison's campaign said he supports Roe's framework establishing fetal viability — generally considered between 23 and 24 weeks of pregnancy — as a threshold for state restrictions, with "critical exceptions" for the health of the baby and "the health and well-being of the pregnant person."

With 2020 - the pandemic year -  possibly an exception, ten thousand of any medical procedure per year shows the procedure was available, utilized, and not abnormal in terms of general medical practice. Without the Gomez Supreme Court holding being the controlling law, think of the anguish those numerous women would have faced in having to possibly travel out of state to exercise basic, fundamental autonomy over their bodies and their lives. Inflicting anguish upon other real and sentinent humans, over an aspect of one's own religeous belief, is untenable. Such a degree of interference into someone else's life choices - on such a thin basis - offends any sane idea of freedom and rights in a civil society. Separation of church and state was and remains a bedrock principle held by the nation's founders, with it being expressly, clearly, put into the Constitution. 

The rats are eating away at separation of church and state, but have not consumed it entirely.

 

That's Show Business.

Link

How many major acts from the past now play county fair venues?

Going stale can be a question of when and not why. 

Fish at room temp ripen even faster.

Tune.

Commuting time lengths, county by county, on average, in Minnesota.

 Without knowing actual data detail, or methods, this site nonetheless presents an interesting list. Crabgrass merely gives the link, without any idea how worthwhile or accurate the listing might prove to be. 

The list exists. The link is given. Make of it what you think best.