Offering daily news and analysis from the majestic Evergreen State and beyond, The Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's unconventional perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Mark Miloscia launches Senate campaign as a Republican – but he’s still a Democratic PCO

Last night, we reported here on the NPI Advocate that ex-Democratic State Representative Mark Mloscia had filed paperwork to challenge his  former colleague Tracey Eide for state Senate… as a Republican.

This morning, Miloscia officially launched his campaign and announced endorsements from State Republican Party Chair Susan Hutchison, King County Republican Chair Lori Soetelo, unsuccessful gubernatorial and senatorial candidate Dino Rossi, and Republican legislators Linda Kochmar and Bruce Dammeier.

In his news release, he borrowed from the Republican playbook to attack Eide, who has represented the district since 1998, claiming, “Senator Eide and I have very different voting records… I opposed reckless spending and tax increases while Senator Eide supported them. I supported innovative approaches to improving our schools, while Senator Eide opposed them and cut funding.”

(Miloscia did not elaborate, or cite any specific roll call votes).

Miloscia also expressed confidence his defection to the Republican Party would not negatively impact his reputation in the district or harm his credibility.

“Our area votes for the best person, not the party,” he argued. “They want someone who will stand up for jobs, for schools, for working people, and for the least among us, regardless of party.”

That’s actually a false dichotomy. The truth is, Washingtonians from Neah Bay to Clarkston cast their votes based on who they identify with. It isn’t about the best person or the party. It is about authenticity. Authenticity matters in politics.

A stellar Municipal League rating and impressive qualifications don’t guarantee a win. Qualifications and party association each matter in a race, but in the end, when voters are deciding who to support, it comes down to authenticity and trust.

If Miloscia really believed that party association doesn’t matter and that the people he is running to represent will support him regardless of which party he identifies with, he’d be running as an independent, sans party label.

But he’s running as a Republican because he wants the support of the Republican Party… especially the money. And the Republicans want his vote so they can maintain control of the Washington State Senate.

Democrats say there’s nothing noble about what Miloscia is doing.

“Today, Mark Miloscia put his own needs above those of 30th District residents by announcing that he will switch parties and run as a Republican for State Senate,” said new Washington State Democratic Party Chair Jaxon Ravens.

“With his last-place finish in the race for State Auditor in 2012, Miloscia is upset that the voters of Washington State chose not to give him a promotion.”

“He saw that he wasn’t advancing fast enough as a Democrat, and he also saw how Rodney Tom has been rewarded for voting with Republicans in the State Senate. By switching parties, Mark Miloscia is hoping that he will gain a faster path to power like Rodney Tom. We are proud to support Senator Tracey Eide, and we are confident that 30th District residents will return her to the State Senate.”

Miloscia has evidently been plotting his run against Eide for some time, as evidenced by the endorsements that he announced today. Timestamps show he began posting content to his new campaign website several days ago. It’s unclear when exactly Miloscia reached a deal with Republicans to run against Eide, but today’s announcement was seemingly in the works for a while.

This much we do know: Miloscia has yet to formally resign from the Democratic Party as the precinct committee officer for FED 30-3056.

Though he finished in last place for state auditor on the August 2012 ballot, he was chosen in the same election by his Democratic neighbors to represent them on the King County Democratic Central Committee (KCDCC) as their PCO.

The 30th District Democrats tell NPI they have not received a letter of resignation from Mark Miloscia. Last night at its March general meeting, after having learned that Miloscia had filed paperwork to challenge Tracey Eide as a Republican, the organization voted to direct Chair Tim Burns to request Miloscia’s resignation.

Until Miloscia resigns, the party cannot replace him; there is no legal avenue for a political party to expel a precinct committee officer.

The 30th’s action should not have been necessary. When Mark Miloscia decided to join the Republican Party, he ought to have notified all of his Democratic friends – especially those who stuck their necks out for him when he ran for auditor – and resigned his position within the Democratic Party. But he didn’t.

And when Democratic activists in the 30th called to inquire about his plans, particularly after the Federal Way Mirror ran a column speculating about his intentions, he left them hanging, choosing not to return calls or answer messages.

Duplicity is not becoming of a person who wishes to serve the people of Washington as an elected official. Mark Miloscia should immediately hand in his resignation as a Democratic precinct committee officer and muster the courage to explain his defection to his Democratic friends.

Mark Miloscia files paperwork to challenge Tracey Eide as a Republican in the 30th LD

Desperate to solidify their tenuous hold on the Washington State Senate, top Republicans have once again recruited into their ranks a candidate repeatedly elected to the Legislature as a Democrat with Democratic volunteers and donations.

Mark Miloscia, who previously served several terms in the state House as one of two of the 30th Legislative District’s representatives, has decided to run against his former colleague Tracey Eide for Senate. He filed his paperwork today with the Public Disclosure Commission and also launched a campaign website.

Mark Miloscia files as a Republican

Mark Miloscia’s C1 for State Senate, filed with the Public Disclosure Commission earlier today.

But unlike Rodney Tom, Jim Kastama, and Tim Sheldon, who defected to the Senate Republican caucus in 2012 (Kastama has since left the Legislature); Miloscia plans to campaign as a Republican. His C1 form lists him as a Republican, and he calls himself a Republican on his new campaign website, created with NationBuilder.

Miloscia has reportedly long been interested in moving up to the state Senate, though he chose to vacate his seat to pursue a bid for auditor in 2012.

Democrats Craig Pridemore and Troy Kelley also decided to forego returning to the Legislature in the hopes of succeeding Brian Sonntag, resulting in a crowded four-way race. Miloscia finished well behind everyone else in the August winnowing election, capturing only 9.77% of the vote. Kelley and Republican James Watkins went on to the general election; Kelley prevailed and took office in early 2013.

There had been speculation that Miloscia might seek to regain a seat in the House by challenging Republican Linda Kochmar.

But evidently, the Republicans approached Miloscia with a better offer. No doubt he was promised big bucks (and perhaps even a committee chairmanship) if he agreed to be their candidate for Senate against Tracey Eide.

Screenshot of Mark Miloscia's website

On his new campaign website, Mark Miloscia says he has joined the Republican Party.

On his website, Miloscia claims he switched parties “only after months of careful consideration”. In a blog post entitled “Choosing a party”, Miloscia (who could definitely use a spelling and grammar checker) writes:

[C]ould Party heroes like a President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, or the evangelical Rev. Martin Luther King JR, be supported by today’s Democrat [sic] leaders and activists?

Before, I’d felt there was a place as the Party publicly promoted a “big tent,” and respected cultural diversity. Some leaders worked to insure [sic] that candidates like myself, had a place.

Not anymore. Today, the Democratic Party asks for our votes and money, but they will never support candidates like JFK, RFK, MLK JR, or even a liberal Tip O’Neill again.

A growing segment, tolerant in name only, now completely controls the party with litmus tests and interest groups.

And on his about page, Miloscia writes:

Today, it’s the Republican Party that offers a big tent, welcoming different views… Washington State Republicans don’t insist that everyone believe and vote exactly the same way.

Uh huh. Either Mark Miloscia has no idea what he has signed up for, or the money he’s been promised is doing the talking for him. If he thinks the Democratic Party is controlled by interest groups with litmus tests, he has no comprehension of what Republican politics are like. The Senate Republican Caucus, which Miloscia now aspires to join, is dominated by extremists and is dysfunctional to its core.

Miloscia has long depicted himself as a principled “pro-life” Democrat, but it’s  evident to us that he is actually an opportunist like Rodney Tom and Tim Sheldon… in our view, the worst kind of politician there is.

Miloscia may have felt rejected in the wake of his campaign for auditor, after many Democrats declined to consider his candidacy due to his opposition to marriage equality, reproductive rights, and initiative reform. But in defecting, Miloscia is turning his back on all of the people who have stood up for him over the years.

What Miloscia fails to admit on his website is that there were a number of progressive Democrats who loudly and enthusiastically supported his campaign for auditor, regardless of whatever disagreements they may have had with him on policy directions. Apparently, those friendships aren’t worth as much to Miloscia as the money the Republican Party is willing to spend on his behalf.

Republicans are eager to expand the playing field, so to speak, to make it harder for Democrats to regain the state Senate. If Republicans could manage to capture Tracey Eide’s seat, Democrats would then need to defeat three Republican incumbents instead of two to get a majority. Hence their recruiting of Miloscia.

When Miloscia ran for auditor, he appeared before a number of Democratic groups and proudly espoused Democratic ideals. In the candidate questionnaire he submitted to the King County Democrats, he began an answer to the question, Why should the county support you over your opponent? by stating:

Democrats need to elect the best person who can succeed in managing an agency dedicated to performance and improving government with the use of audits. This person needs to be able to passionately champion government improvement, government programs and Democratic leadership.

Miloscia went on to describe his priorities as follows:

My issues should be no surprise for I have not been silent on our pressing needs as a state representative.

I have been a consistent and vocal champion for solving these three most pressing issues facing our state today:

  1. Restoring voter trust in government and Democrat[ic] legislative leadership so we can start passing needed tax and program reform policies to help educate our children, take care of the elderly and those less fortunate.
  2. Reversing the wage inequality gap caused by the war on unions and the middle class which will also improve tax collections and help gain voters’ confidence.
  3. Improving the Quality and Sustainability of Government, School programs and budgets through the use of performance management and performance audits.

As State Auditor, I will champion those best practices that further these goals.

If Miloscia thinks the Republican Party is interested in any of these priorities, he’s deluded. Today’s Republican Party is the party of Grover Norquist and Tim Eyman, of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, of Scott Walker, Rick Snyder, and Paul LePage. Its agenda is to wreck government, eviscerate public services, and destroy the rights of working men and women. It is virulently anti-labor.

The party has embraced scorched-earth tactics and hostage-taking to accomplish this. Its modus operandi is obstruct, obfuscate, and obliterate.

Perhaps Grover Norquist said it best:

I’m not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.

In joining the Republican Party, Mark Miloscia has turned his back on his Democratic friends and vindicated his critics. He’s part of the Party of No now. Too bad.

G-7 democracies suspend participation in G-8 summit in Sochi to protest invasion of Ukraine

If Vladimir Putin and his entourage were betting that the G-8 summit could still go forward without the participation of the United States, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom in the wake of their invasion of Ukraine, they were mistaken.

The White House has announced that the other three G-7 countries (Germany, Italy, and Japan) are also suspending their participation in the 2014 G-8 Summit, which had been scheduled to take place in Sochi.

Here’s the joint statement:

We, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States and the President of the European Council and President of the European Commission, join together today to condemn the Russian Federation’s clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, in contravention of Russia’s obligations under the UN Charter and its 1997 basing agreement with Ukraine. We call on Russia to address any ongoing security or human rights concerns that it has with Ukraine through direct negotiations, and/or via international observation or mediation under the auspices of the UN or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We stand ready to assist with these efforts.

We also call on all parties concerned to behave with the greatest extent of self-restraint and responsibility, and to decrease the tensions.

We note that Russia’s actions in Ukraine also contravene the principles and values on which the G-7 and the G-8 operate.

As such, we have decided for the time being to suspend our participation in activities associated with the preparation of the scheduled G-8 Summit in Sochi in June, until the environment comes back where the G-8 is able to have meaningful discussion.

We are united in supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and its right to choose its own future. We commit ourselves to support Ukraine in its efforts to restore unity, stability, and political and economic health to the country. To that end, we will support Ukraine’s work with the International Monetary Fund to negotiate a new program and to implement needed reforms. IMF support will be critical in unlocking additional assistance from the World Bank, other international financial institutions, the EU, and bilateral sources.

After the U.S., U.K., France, and Canada made it clear that their participation in the G-8 Summit was on ice, Putin’s spokesman dismissively declared, “It’s not a minus for Russia… it will be a minus for the G-8″, implying that the summit was still going forward. But if no other nation is attending, it isn’t a summit at all. How is it not a minus for Russia if nobody shows up to Vladimir Putin’s party in Sochi?

The G-7 nations – all members of NATO except for Japan – have the option of meeting without Russia at another time and place, and such a conference might end up displacing the G-8 Summit that Russia was going to host. That is Russia’s loss, whether Putin and his press flacks want to acknowledge it or not.

Disturbingly, The New York Times reports that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was left with a bad impression following her phone conversation with Putin this weekend. Merkel is said to have told Obama that she wasn’t sure if Putin was in touch with reality or not. If Putin is indeed operating “in another world,” as Merkel allegedly said, that’s not good news for prospects of a quick resolution to this crisis.

Ukraine asks NATO, UN for help as Russians move in; new government mobilizes military

The news out of Ukraine just keeps getting worse.

In the wake of the Russian parliament’s vote to endorse (or rubber stamp) Vladimir Putin’s already scripted invasion of its neighbor, the new Ukranian government is appealing to the international community for help and mobilizing its military, fearing that Putin has designs on more than just the Crimean Peninsula, where Russian troops are moving in with the help of Russian sympathizers.

A recap of the latest developments:

  • Ukraine’s prime minister declared that his country was on “the brink of disaster” and asked the international community to provide help to his country in the face of Russian aggression.
  • The Ukranian military is calling up its reservists while Russian troops continue to encircle its bases in the Crimean Peninsula. Russia has its own bases on the Peninsula, which it leases under a long-term agreement that was drawn up in the 1990s. Its Black Sea Fleet is headquartered in Sevastopol.
  • The BBC is reporting that the man recently appointed to head up Ukraine’s navy has defected, swearing allegiance to the Crimean region, “in the presence of its unrecognised pro-Russian leader”.
  • U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry appeared on three Sunday talk shows to warn that Russia faces expulsion from the G-8 (Group of 8), as well as other consequences (which could include travel bans on leading Russian officials, cancellation of work on a new trade agreement, the freezing of assets) if it does not cease its aggression in Ukraine.
  • A spokesman for Putin, who evidently anticipated the backlash, was dismissive of Kerry’s warning. “It’s not a minus for Russia… it will be a minus for the G-8,” said the spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov. Peskov and his boss must be aware that the G-8′s other democracies (at least four so far, including Canada and the United States) are threatening to cancel their participation in the G-8 as well. How is the collapse of this year’s summit, which is a very real possibility at this point, not a minus for Russia?
  • NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen convened an emergency meeting of the twenty-eight nation alliance in Brussels to discuss Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, and what steps NATO might take in response. Ukraine is not a member of the alliance, but it does send an ambassador to NATO.
  • British Foreign Secretary William Hague traveled to Kiev to meet with his Ukranian counterparts. The United Kingdom, which has strongly condemned Russia’s incursion, is offering assistance and diplomatic support.

The U.S. Department of State has just announced that Kerry will follow suit. He will head to Kiev on Tuesday to offer U.S. assistance and diplomatic support.

So far, the strongest responses to Russia’s aggression have come from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and France. All four nations have publicly announced the suspension of preparations to attend the G-8 summit in Sochi.

The other G-8 nations (aside from Russia) are Germany, Japan, and Italy. Germany and Italy are also members of NATO.

Republican Pedro Celis confirms he’ll challenge Suzan DelBene for U.S. House

With less than ninety days to go until the filing deadline arrives, the Republican Party has finally found a challenger for U.S. Representative Suzan DelBene: Pedro Celis, a fifty-four year old former software engineer who resides in Redmond. Celis worked for Microsoft for more than a decade and is now a member of the board of Plaza Bank, a local financial institution that serves the Latino community.

Seattle Times political reporter Jim Brunner spoke to Celis earlier today ahead of his official campaign kickoff tomorrow to get a sense of what Celis will be running on.

Celis predictably criticized DelBene’s support of the Patient Protection Act, no doubt having been told by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) that this should be his major theme. And he also condemned DelBene for supporting an increase in the minimum wage, to $10.10 an hour.

I can’t imagine that Celis isn’t aware that Washington State has the highest minimum wage of any state in the county and that voters here have welcomed opportunities to increase the minimum wage, most recently last year in SeaTac.

In fact, the reason that our state’s minimum wage is the highest of any state in the Union is that we started indexing it to the Consumer Price Index in 2001.

A few weeks after Celis began working at Microsoft (he started in September of 1998, according to his LinkedIn profile) voters resoundingly and overwhelmingly approved Initiative 688 by a margin of nearly two-to-one – 66.1% to 33.9%.

I-688 increased the minimum wage from $4.90 to $5.70 in 1999, and then to $6.50 in 2000, providing that it be indexed to the CPI thereafter. (It’s now $9.32 an hour). It ranks as one of the most popular initiatives in Washington State history.

Celis is certainly entitled to his opinion, but raising the minimum wage has been good for Washington families and our economic security.

Prior to I-688′s passage, lobbyists for numerous trade associations predicted that bad things would happen if it became law. Here is how the Seattle Times’ Jim Lynch characterized their opposition at the time:

Washington business groups call the November ballot measure a frightening prospect that could stick the state with unreasonably high wages and put it at a competitive disadvantage.

“Scary,” says Russ Goodman, spokesman for the Washington Restaurant Association.

Scary? Try successful.  I-688 has now been the law of the land for over fifteen years, and it has contributed to the economic security of thousands of Washington families. Lately, our state has repeatedly been ranked as one of the best states to do business, and our high minimum wage actually helps our competitiveness.

What Celis doesn’t seem to appreciate is that when workers (who are the real profit creators!) are paid a higher wage, they need less public assistance and can contribute to the economic security of their neighbors.

If Celis and his campaign team think that running against the minimum wage will help him appeal to voters, they are sorely mistaken. Dino Rossi tried that in 2008 in his rematch with Chris Gregoire, and it contributed to the failure of his campaign.

Given that Celis was a supporter of the Washington State DREAM Act, signed into law today by Governor Jay Inslee, I’d be curious to know what his position is on comprehensive immigration reform. Brunner’s story doesn’t discuss that issue, although that doesn’t mean Brunner didn’t ask Celis about it during their interview.

Celis’ campaign has registered several domains to be used in conjunction with the campaign, including pedrocelis.com, which a WHOIS search shows is currently held by the National Republican Congressional Committee’s senior digital strategist Christopher Hanks. Hanks also is the registrant for celisforcongress.com.

DelBene’s campaign did not mince words when asked for comment. Speaking on behalf of the campaign, Soundview Strategies’ Sandeep Kaushik told Brunner, “If you like the way the Republican Congress has forced the irresponsible government shutdown, advocates for privatizing Social Security and launched a war on women, and want more of the same, then Celis is your candidate.”

Arizona’s Jan Brewer vetoes anti-LGBT bill in landmark defeat for fundamentalist right wing

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed a bill that would have legalized discrimination in the 48th State on the basis of sexual orientation, after progressives and business groups mobilized against the bill following its passage out of the Grand Canyon State’s Legislature, which is controlled by Republicans.

The Arizona Republic reports that Brewer revealed her decision at a short news conference in which she took no questions. Brewer said the legislation, Senate Bill 1062, would have created more problems than it would have solved.

The Republican governor announced the bill was unnecessary legislation that threatened the state’s recovering economy by driving away high-profile events such as next year’s Super Bowl and corporations looking to relocate to Arizona.

Her veto – coming two days after state lawmakers sent SB 1062 to her desk – capped a week of escalating furor over the bill that once again catapulted Arizona’s political into the national spotlight.

The state’s Republican U.S. senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, hundreds of protesters and the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee, which is preparing for the 2015 NFL championship game, all urged the governor to veto the bill, saying it could wreck the state’s post-recession recovery. National political figures such as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney also weighed in this week to urge Brewer to nix the measure.

Brewer was also asked to veto SB 1062 by several Republican state senators who originally voted for it, but changed their minds after its passage created a nationwide furor. Had they voted no when it was in their hands, it would never have made it to Brewer’s desk, as all of the Democrats were opposed.

Civil rights advocates praised the veto.

“We thank Governor Brewer for her decision to veto this outrageous measure — a law that if enacted would be bad for Arizona people and the Arizona economy. In doing so, she has stopped a bill that both cynically uses religion as a smokescreen to justify discrimination and insults people of faith who feel that discrimination is morally wrong. This decision sends a clear message that extremism is totally unacceptable to people of all political persuasions,” said Rea Carey, Executive Director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund.

We too applaud the demise of SB 1062, which would have allowed Arizona business owners to refuse to serve gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals merely due to their sexual orientation. Discrimination goes against the values of our country, and our laws should forbid it – not allow it or encourage it.

BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) finally headed to Windows Phone; will debut this summer

Dispelling recent reports in the tech blogosphere to the contrary, BlackBerry announced this morning that it is working to bring BBM, BlackBerry’s popular and increasingly cross-platform mobile-to-mobile messaging service, to Windows Phone, in partnership with Nokia. BBM will also be present on Nokia’s new Android-based Nokia X smartphone platform when it launches in a few months.

“BBM continues to grow in popularity as millions of people use our mobile platform for chatting and connecting with friends or colleagues, and we are very excited that we will soon welcome Windows Phone and Nokia X users to the BBM community,” said John Sims, President, Global Enterprise Solutions at BlackBerry in a statement.

“Today marks an exciting moment for Nokia,” agreed Bryan Biniak, Vice President and GM of Developer Relations, Nokia Corporation. “By bringing BBM to the Windows Phone and Nokia X communities, our customers will be able to experience this popular global messaging app.”

BBM, which is short for BlackBerry Messenger, was first introduced by Research in Motion (now BlackBerry Limited) several years ago as a secure and private mobile-to-mobile messaging service for BlackBerry users, building on the earlier PIN messaging capability included in the company’s handsets.

(A PIN is an eight-character personal identification number consisting of letters as well as numbers. Each BlackBerry handset is assigned its own unique PIN at the time of manufacture, in addition to industry-standard identifiers).

BBM has always utilized the PIN system. In the BlackBerry universe, PINs are the equivalent of screen names. They’re akin to public keys. If you know the PIN of the person you want to chat with, you can send an invitation (or friend request, in Facebook parlance) to him or her. If he or she accepts the invitation, you’re then connected, and it becomes possible to initiate and carry on a conversation.

In its early days, BBM could only be used for two-way text conversations. But BlackBerry has since added a lot of new capabilities to BBM, including groups, channels, attachments, integration with other applications, voice calling, video chat + screen sharing, and as of last week, stickers through the new BBM Store.

BBM is superior to text messaging in many ways. It works over Wi-Fi, it’s totally independent of mobile telephone numbers, and there is no one hundred and sixty character limit. Most importantly, messages are confirmed as delivered (D) when they land on the recipient’s device, and confirmed as read (R) when opened by the user. The D’s and the R’s alone make BBM extremely useful.

Last May, at the final BlackBerry Live conference, the company announced it was taking BBM cross-platform, and would make the service available to iOS and Android users in the fall. High anticipation and a leaked version of the app messed up the initial launch plans, but BlackBerry ultimately got the rollout back on track and BBM saw a huge number of downloads in its first few days.

On non-BlackBerry phones, new BBM users are assigned a PIN when they launch the app, since they don’t have a BlackBerry handset with a preassigned PIN.

BlackBerry has continually sought to improve the BBM experience on iOS and Android platforms since the launch last fall. BBM 2.0 for those platforms debuted earlier this month, improving the feature parity with BBM for BlackBerry handsets by introducing BBM Voice and BBM Channels.

In addition, BlackBerry recently figured out how to make BBM available to people still stuck on Gingerbread (the Google code name for an older incarnation of Android). Now BlackBerry is conquering the next frontier by bringing BBM to Windows Phone. It’s a very smart move and it will give true meaning to the slogan #BBM4All, which the company uses on Twitter.

It would be nice to see BBM debut on the desktop later this year as well. Currently, BBM only works on handsets and on BlackBerry’s PlayBook tablet (when the PlayBook is bridged to a BlackBerry smartphone).

Since Windows Phone is getting BBM, maybe Windows (and hopefully Mac and GNU/Linux distributions) won’t be too far behind.

How Jay Inslee can stand up for Washington’s kids

In the wake of the Washington State Senate’s remarkable, bipartisan revolt against standardized testing mandates, the issue has rocketed to the top of the state’s political agenda. It was a prominent issue across the state yesterday at the various legislative town halls.

Education reform groups are mobilizing to reverse the Senate’s decision, voicing concern that as much as $38 million in federal grants may be lost unless Washington teacher evaluations are linked to student test scores – even if parents do not want such a link to be made. And today Governor Jay Inslee, in Washington D.C. for the National Governors Association meeting, will sit down with Education Secretary Arne Duncan to discuss the issue.

Duncan is not going to simply back down without being forced to do so. But by taking away Duncan’s leverage and calling his bluff, Washington State political leaders can protect our kids from being overtested.

It’s worth thinking about how bluffing works. The entire point is for the bluffer to turn a weak position into a winning one by making the other side quit because they are afraid of what the bluffer might do – whether it’s laying down a straight flush and taking the pot, or yanking millions in federal education funds. A bluff works when the other side believes you, doesn’t want to take the risk, and folds. Bluffing fails when the other side doesn’t believe you and refuses to be intimidated. Especially when they know they, not the bluffer, have the winning hand.

Education reformers like Duncan have consistently failed to get Washington State to directly link teacher evaluations to test scores. Parents, teachers, and students have resisted such a link because they know it will erode the quality of classroom instruction by “teaching to the test.” These attitudes are bipartisan and cross the ideological spectrum. Public anger at standardized testing is producing a nationwide backlash as parents demand schools focus on instruction and not on testing.

Several years ago Washington legislators arrived at a sensible compromise, requiring districts to include measures of student growth in their evaluations of teachers – but leaving it to the districts to decide what that actually meant. It’s a good system that should be given time to be properly implemented. But Duncan insists that teacher evaluations be directly linked to specific test scores, even where states have chosen not to do so.

Education reformers and their Republican allies are trying to make this issue not about teacher evaluations and standardized tests – they know they’ll lose on that ground. So instead they have reframed the debate as whether Washington will lose out on as much as $38 million in federal funding.

That’s no small amount of money – except in comparison to the billion-dollar tab of complying with the Supreme Court’s McCleary decision. The Legislature is already under strict court order to come up with $1 billion to adequately fund K-12 education. The Legislature should simply tell the U.S. Department of Education it has no problem adding another $38 million to that bill. It’s easy, affordable, and worth every penny given the restoration of local control over education policy that comes with it.

Such a step only becomes necessary if Duncan carries out his threat. If Governor Inslee and the Legislature tell Duncan that Washington will simply backfill any lost federal funding, standing firm in the face of federal demands, Duncan will have to fold. Especially since his remaining cards are very weak.

The other threat the U.S. Department of Education has made is that it will revoke the state’s waiver from the odious No Child Left Behind law. This is their most obvious bluff. Without the waiver, schools not meeting the requirement that 100% of students be meeting test score standards will have to send letters home to parents explaining that their kid attends a “failing school.”

The Obama Administration has no desire to see this actually happen. President Obama has already pledged to fix No Child Left Behind. He also has spoken out repeatedly against standardized tests:

Don’t label a school as failing one day and then throw your hands up and walk away from it the next.

And don’t tell us that the only way to teach a child is to spend too much of the year preparing him to fill in a few bubbles on a standardized test.

President Obama knows that it would be bad politics for those letters to get sent home, and so he’s been looking for a way out. The waivers are not just leverage to get states to adopt policies they have otherwise refused. They’re also an essential escape from a serious political problem for the president.

After all, California has shown this strategy is successful. Governor Jerry Brown and the California legislature faced a similar threat from Duncan, who vowed to revoke the NCLB waiver and take back millions in federal funding from California schools if the state went ahead with a one-year delay in administering a certain standardized test. California rejected the demand and so far, Duncan has not followed through on his threat.

The lessons are clear. Rather than approaching Duncan as a supplicant, Governor Inslee and the state legislature should be calling his bluff. They should pledge to backfill any federal grants that are taken away if Washington insists on protecting students from classrooms that teach to the test. They should stand with colleagues in other states that are also pushing back on flawed federal education mandates. Instead, they should collaborate together on sensible policies that will ensure our students get a good, comprehensive, holistic education that prepares them for life, rather than for bubble tests.

Washington should follow California’s lead and resist flawed federal education demands

Next week Washington Governor Jay Inslee will meet with U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan to discuss the state’s waiver from the requirements of the failed No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. Last year Duncan’s department threatened to revoke the waiver unless the state legislature mandated that districts include student test scores in teacher evaluations. Currently districts have flexibility on how to define “student growth” measurements and can refuse to base teacher evaluations on test scores – which is a good move for teacher morale and ensures comprehensive, quality instruction for our students.

The Inslee-Duncan meeting was caused by the State Senate’s wise rejection of a bill that would link scores to evaluations. Seven Republicans joined the Democrats in voting down SB 5246, bucking their caucus to side with a growing national revolt against the culture of standardized testing.

But before Governor Inslee meets with Secretary Duncan, he should place a call to his colleague in California. Governor Jerry Brown and the state legislature faced a similar threat from Duncan, who vowed to revoke the NCLB waiver and take back millions in federal funding from California schools. California rejected the demand and so far, Duncan has not followed through on his threat.

The situation in California was similar, though not precisely the same, as in Washington State. California is moving to a new statewide standardized testing system aligned with the Common Core curriculum. That system will not be ready until the 2014-15 school year. It made no sense for the state to force teachers to give students the now obsolete STAR test. So the California Legislature adopted AB 484 to suspend STAR tests for the 2013-14 year.

Secretary Duncan spoke out against this bill, but Governor Brown was not moved:

Jim Evans, a spokesman for Brown, said Tuesday in a statement, “We support the legislation.”

“There is no reason to double-test students using outdated, ineffective standards disconnected from what’s taught in the classroom,” Evans added.

California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson rose to defend California’s ability to make its own laws regarding student assessments:

“I’m disappointed someone in Washington would want to interfere in the legislative process in California,” Torlakson told The Bee.

California and Washington are not the only states pushing back against federal education mandates. New York is pressing the pause button on the Common Core standards mandated by the U.S. Department of Education. The backlash to these mandates is bipartisan and spans the ideological spectrum.

States are traditionally laboratories of innovation. Washington State has innovated a sensible approach to teacher evaluation that is a fair compromise between many of the different positions in the debate. No parent wants their child’s education to be focused solely on test scores. Nor do they want their child’s curriculum to be narrowed to exclude subjects that aren’t on standardized tests. Washington should continue down its own path, rather than have to give in to a federal mandate that will lead schools to teach to the test rather than teach to the child.

Governor Inslee should stand firm in his meeting with Secretary Duncan in defense of Washington’s innovative model. He should enlist support from his fellow governor in Sacramento, and from others around the country who are growing concerned at a lack of collaboration and an unwillingness to respect local control on the part of the U.S. Department of Education.

Washington State Senate revolts against teaching to the test in key vote

Ever since Rodney Tom and Tim Sheldon facilitated the coup that gave Republicans control of the Washington State Senate, true bipartisanship in that body has been a rarity. Tom’s disciplined right-wing caucus have battled Senate Democrats over everything from reproductive rights to transportation choices to the state’s constitutional obligation to fully fund our public schools.

So it came as a surprise to many observers when seven Senate Republicans bolted from the right-wing caucus to kill a bill sponsored by one of their own.

Republicans brought up Senator Steve Litzow’s SB 5246, which would require school districts to link teacher evaluations to student test scores as their very last item of business before the 5 PM cutoff for non-budget bills.

The “five o’clock bill” is typically one that the majority wishes to highlight, one that the majority is confident they can pass.

Republican Senators expressed their shock that SB 5246 failed, and several media outlets shared that view. But nobody should have been surprised at this outcome.

The Senate’s rejection of SB 5246 is part of a growing national uprising against bad education policies that, in the name of data and accountability, have turned classrooms into test prep centers, eroding quality education in favor of a too-narrow and demoralizing focus on test scores.

Although Washington media outlets have been slow to notice this growing movement of parents, teachers, and students, it is gaining national prominence as legislatures and school officials begin to resist these flawed policies.

In recent years, many states have mandated that student test scores be used as a primary factor in evaluating teachers – including whether or not they keep their jobs. Despite criticisms that such requirements ignore specific needs or issues students may have that are outside teacher control, and reports that these rules disadvantage low-income and minority students, states have pressed ahead with these policies.

One of the results is a teaching profession that feels demoralized as their curriculum is narrowed to focus solely on test scores.

Studies have shown students are learning fewer subjects, with less instructional time in subjects like art, music, history, and science so that teachers can keep their jobs by focusing only on what will be on the test.

In some extreme cases, teachers and administrators have been caught rigging test scores to prevent layoffs and school closures tied to low scores. Michelle Rhee linked teacher evaluations to test scores when she ran the District of Columbia’s school system. She claimed the policy led to dramatic gains in test scores.

But in reality, much of the gains were the product of cheating that Rhee is alleged to have covered up, as teachers and principals feared for their jobs.

Linking employee evaluations to scores and specific data outcomes is uncommon in the private sector. Microsoft abandoned its reviled stack ranking system after finally admitting it was doing more damage to morale than it was helping the company.

The combination of parent outrage at students being overtested, concern about the narrowed curriculum, and anger at seeing teachers quitting the profession because they’re told to teach to the test has led to a broad-based, bipartisan public revolt against standardized testing policies.

Last month NPR examined the pushback against teaching to the test and found remarkable bipartisan agreement on the need to deemphasize testing, especially as it relates to the new Common Core standards:

But there’s growing backlash to Common Core, and conservatives and liberals increasingly are voicing similar concerns: that the standards take a one-size-fits-all approach, create a de facto national curriculum, put too much emphasis on standardized tests and undermine teacher autonomy.

[...]

“This is a set of standards that does not reflect the experience of many groups of students served by public education, does not reflect the concerns that many parents have for what they want to see in their education, and that really doubles down on a testing-and-punish regime that has proven to be the wrong approach to improving public education,” Karp says.

[...]

“From the conservative side, there is an understanding of the dangerousness of standardization. And from sort of a libertarian perspective, there’s suspicion of government control of what students learn that really resonates with me as a teacher who wants some autonomy,” Cody says. “I don’t want to be so tied to filling their heads with this predetermined list of things.”

The backlash has materialized in several states that span the spectrum from red to blue. In 2012, Idaho voters resoundingly rejected laws that tied teacher performance to test scores. In New York an outcry against testing from parents across the state forced the legislature to begin revising the state’s approach to testing last month. The Washington Senate’s rejection of SB 5246 is part of this truly bipartisan resistance against these flawed and unpopular laws.

SB 5246 was touted as a necessary move to satisfy a federal Department of Education mandate that teacher evaluations be linked to test scores or else lose $38 million in funding. In a guest column published in the Seattle Times last month, I argued that this mandate was likely a bluff and that Washington legislators should follow the lead of their colleagues in California, where legislators rejected a federal testing demand without consequence.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn responded in the Times last week trying to rally support for linking teacher evaluations to test scores.

But his arguments failed to persuade senators who have a more important audience: their own constituents. Democrats have suggested that Republicans brought the bill to a vote despite knowing it would fail in order to use it as a campaign issue:

State Sen. Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island, said Republican leaders knew the bill would fail but brought it up anyway so they could use the vote in the upcoming midterm elections.

That’s possible, but if true, it would be a foolish strategy for the Republicans. As we’ve seen, the culture of standardized testing in our schools is becoming deeply unpopular. Voters from across the political spectrum are turning against policies that link teacher evaluations to those test scores.

Any candidate, regardless of party, that runs on a platform that includes mandating such a link is not likely to fare well this fall.

By rejecting bills like Litzow’s, Washington legislators can get back to the real task at hand: complying with the McCleary decision and fully funding our public schools as required by Artice IX of our Constitution. That would include restoring voter-approved Initiative 728, which sensibly requires smaller class sizes.

Latest spat between Republicans in the Washington State Senate proves Rodney Tom’s “majority coalition” is a fiction

In the wake of the Washington State Senate’s speedy vote in favor of an improved version of the DREAM Act, several of the more uncompromising members of the Republican Caucus have decided to declare their independence from Rodney Tom’s so-called “Majority Coalition Caucus” by having their names scrubbed from the MCC’s website, the Seattle Times’ Brian Rosenthal is reporting.

Janea Holmquist Newbry, Pam Roach, Don Benton, and one other Republican senator are evidently still mad about last week’s surprise vote, in which a bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to approve legislation that would allow the state to provide financial aid to new young Americans who want to go to college here but lack citizenship because they were brought into the country illegally.

“I will not participate in the Majority Coalition Caucus when they promote things that are in opposition to standard Republican ideas,” Don Benton told Rosenthal.

The obnoxious Benton went on to slam Tom as “the worst majority leader in twenty years” according to a tweet posted by Rosenthal.

We find Benton’s fuming amusing, considering that he has previously taken credit for Rodney Tom and Tim Sheldon’s power grab. In late 2012 Benton released a statement saying how proud he was that his narrow victory over Democrat Tim Probst made the coup possible. (Voters had elected a Democratic majority to govern both the House and the Senate just a few weeks prior).

For her part, Roach told Rosenthal that she and other hardline Republicans plan to reassert control by bringing forth an amendment to caucus rules requiring that any significant bill get a roll call vote within the caucus before being sent to the floor. Supposedly, that proposal came up for consideration this afternoon.

This public infighting validates what we have been saying about Tom’s power grab since day one. There is no “majority coalition caucus” because there is no coalition and no majority. There is, rather, a very uneasy power-sharing agreement, which has produced disastrous results, especially for the people of Washington State.

It’s clear that Republicans like Pam Roach and Don Benton do not consider Rodney Tom to be their leader. They’ve become quite accustomed to getting their way since late 2012, when Tom and Sheldon sold out their Democratic colleagues and agreed to become enablers of Republican extremism.

Last week was one of the few exceptions to that. We have rarely seen suburban Republicans break ranks and join Democrats to pass sensible legislation.

Roach, Benton, Holmquist Newbry, et al. undoubtedly view the power sharing agreement with Tom and Sheldon as a temporary alliance of convenience.

If Republicans had just one more seat in the Senate, they would actually have outright control over the chamber and wouldn’t need to put up with Tom or Sheldon, who is president pro tempore under the power sharing agreement. They could name their own majority leader and relegate the pair to the back bench.

Conversely, Democrats need only two seats to regain the majority in 2014 and put Republicans back in the minority.

Tom’s seat is considered one of the most likely to flip, since the 48th LD is among the most Democratic of Washington’s suburban districts. Democrats are fielding former Kirkland City Councilmember Joan McBride in that race.

In the nearby 45th, the party is backing Navy veteran and Amazon product manager Matt Isenhower to take on Andy Hill. In the 28th, meanwhile, Democratic State Representative Tami Green is challenging freshman Republican Steve O’Ban.

Comcast plans to acquire Time Warner Cable for $44 billion; FCC and DOJ should veto deal

Media and telecommunications conglomerate Comcast, the nation’s largest provider of cable television and the owner of NBC Universal, has just announced it has agreed to acquire the nation’s second largest cable television provider, Time Warner Cable, in a $44 billion plus all-stock megadeal. Bloomberg reports:

Comcast is paying about $159 a share in the transaction, which will be announced this morning, said the people, who asked not to be named because the negotiations were private.

Comcast beat rival Charter Communications Inc. (CHTR) to what is the second-largest cable-television acquisition by equity value, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Stamford, Connecticut-based Charter, the fourth-largest U.S. cable company, had offered about $132.50 a share to Time Warner Cable’s management, a bid that was rejected.

If the deal goes through, Comcast would utterly dominate the cable television market as a near monopoly, with nearly three quarters of paying customers. That’s according to the National Cable Television Association.

But the deal should not go through. It is an attempt by Comcast to become ever larger and more powerful… and Comcast is already too large and too powerful. As Rupert Murdoch’s The Wall Street Journal has noted:

The deal faces high regulatory barriers. Comcast not only serves more pay TV customers than any other company in the U.S., nearly 22 million video subscribers, but it also owns entertainment company NBCUniversal, parent of the NBC broadcast network and several big cable channels as well as Universal film studio.

Time Warner Cable serves about 11 million video subscribers, although as part of the deal, Comcast has agreed to divest three million subscribers, the people said. Those divestitures will keep its ownership of the pay TV market below 30%, the people said.

Comcast hopes to convince regulators that because cable companies don’t compete, their deal should go through.

The Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice should put a stop to this deal, just as they successfully opposed AT&T’s anticompetitive plan to acquire T-Mobile. Regulators must not forget that Comcast is much more than a cable company. It is a phone, television, Internet, and media company with vast holdings and a venture capital arm with investments in dozens of other companies, as you can see from Columbia Journalism Review’s Who Owns What.

Our friend Craig Aaron, who serves as President of Free Press, succinctly explained why this tie-up should not be allowed in a statement released a little bit ago:

In an already uncompetitive market with high prices that keep going up and up, a merger of the two biggest cable companies should be unthinkable. This deal would be a disaster for consumers and must be stopped.

This deal would give Comcast control of more than a third of the U.S. pay-TV market and more than half of the U.S. triple-play market for video, voice and Internet service.

Comcast will have unprecedented market power over consumers and an unprecedented ability to exert its influence over any channels or businesses that want to reach Comcast’s customers.

No one woke up this morning wishing their cable company was bigger or had more control over what they could watch or download. But that — along with higher bills — is  the reality they’ll face tomorrow unless the Department of Justice and the FCC do their jobs and block this merger. Stopping this kind of deal is exactly why we have antitrust laws.

Americans already hate dealing with the cable guy — and both these giant companies regularly rank among the worst of the worst in consumer surveys. But this deal would be the cable guy on steroids — pumped up, unstoppable and grasping for your wallet.

We agree. The FCC and DOJ must put a stop to Comcast CEO Brian Roberts’ empire building. They have allowed Roberts to continue enlarging Comcast through acquisitions for too many years. It’s time they objected and said no more.

U.S. Senate breaks Ted Cruz’s filibuster, joins House in voting to pay nation’s bills into 2015

Well, that was fast.

Less than a day after the United States House of Representatives voted to give the Department of the Treasury the authority to continue paying the nation’s bills into March 2015, the Senate followed suit, in the process breaking a filibuster staged by Tea Party darling Ted Cruz of Texas, who is upset that Republicans aren’t using the threat of default to wring policy concessions out of President Obama.

The vote to invoke cloture was sixty-seven to thirty-one, and the vote on final passage was fifty-five to forty-three.

The roll call on cloture from the Pacific Northwest was as follows:

Voting Aye: Democrats Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray (WA); Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley (OR); Mark Begich (AK); Jon Tester and John Walsh (MT); Republican Lisa Murkowski (AK)

Voting Nay: Republicans Jim Risch and Mike Crapo (ID)

On final passage, the roll call broke down along party lines, as it did for the whole Senate, with Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joining Jim Risch and Mike Crapo in voting no. Two Republican senators – Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma – did not participate in either vote.

Aside from Murkowski, the other Republicans who voted to invoke cloture were Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, Bob Corker of Tennessee, John Cornyn of Texas, John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, John Thune of South Dakota, and Mark Kirk of Illinois.

Initially, it looked like Cruz’s filibuster would not be broken, as not enough Republicans were siding with Democrats to overcome the undemocratic sixty-vote threshold. Reluctantly, Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn stepped in to break the filibuster, bringing several Republicans along with them.

They then withheld their votes on final passage and the legislation passed solely with Democratic and independent votes. It now heads to President Obama.

The White House has yet to comment on the Senate vote but we’ll update this post when they do. It’s nice to know that we don’t have to worry about the United States defaulting later this month. But Congress still needs to abolish the debt repayment ceiling. If they make appropriations, Treasury needs to be able to pay those bills. Otherwise no one will have confidence in our federal government.

UPDATE: President Obama himself has commented on the vote:

I’m pleased that Republicans and Democrats in Congress have come together to pay for what they’ve already spent, and remove the threat of default from our economy once and for all.

The full faith and credit of the United States is too important to use as leverage or a tool for extortion.

Hopefully, this puts an end to politics by brinksmanship and allows us to move forward to do more to create good jobs and strengthen the economy. Instead of wasting time creating new crises, Congress should be focused on creating new jobs and opportunities.

That’s what the American people deserve from their representatives in Washington [D.C.], and that’s what they should get.

Well said, Mr. President. Well said.

House of Representatives votes to continue paying America’s bills past midterm elections

With the memory of last autumn’s disastrous manufactured fiscal crisis and completely unnecessary federal government shutdown still fresh in their minds, the leadership of the U.S. House Republican Caucus today allowed a bill to come to the floor to authorize the U.S. Department of the Treasury to pay the nation’s bills for another year, through the midterm elections and into March 2015.

Twenty eight Republicans joined with one hundred and ninety-three Democrats to send the legislation to the United States Senate. The overall vote was two hundred and twenty-one to two hundred and one. Two Democrats (John Barrow of Georgia and Jim Matheson of Utah) sided with the remaining Republicans.

“Tonight’s vote is a positive step in moving away from the political brinkmanship that’s a needless drag on our economy,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney in a statement following the vote. “The American economy is moving forward, but there is much more to do to ensure that more middle class Americans – and those striving to get into it – can get ahead.”

“Congress can start by raising the minimum wage so that no one who works full time raises their family in poverty, restoring emergency unemployment insurance for the 1.7 million Americans searching every day for a job who need this vital lifeline to support their families, and taking additional steps to strengthen our economy and restore opportunity for all Americans.”

The roll call from the Pacific Northwest was as follows:

Voting Aye: Democrats Suzan DelBene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Jim McDermott, Adam Smith, Denny Heck (WA), Suzanne Bonamici, Peter DeFazio, Earl Blumenauer, Kurt Schrader (OR); Republicans Doc Hastings and Dave Reichert (WA)

Voting Nay: Republicans Jaime Herrera-Beutler and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA), Greg Walden (OR) Mike Simpson and Raúl Labrador (ID), Steve Daines (MT), Don Young (AK)

With the exceptions of Dave Reichert and Doc Hastings, the entire Republican side of the Pacific Northwest’s congressional delegation irresponsibly voted not to authorize Treasury to pay the nation’s bills. Shame on all of them.

U.S. Representative Suzan DelBene, who represents NPI’s home district in Congress, explained her aye vote in a statement released to media outlets a short time ago.

“The House’s bipartisan vote today ends the risk of America defaulting for the next year, helping us move past another manufactured fiscal crisis that could have been addressed months ago,” she said. “Failure to raise the debt ceiling would have resulted in serious consequences for our economy and the middle class.”

“Today’s vote was the responsible action to take.”

We agree, and we thank her and the other Democrats from the Northwest, along with Dave and Doc, for their aye votes.

It is notable that Democrats supplied eighty-seven percent of the aye votes for this legislation. It just goes to show that even when Republicans are in charge, they’re incapable of governing. They dither, bicker, and squabble until the eleventh hour, and then they fracture once it’s do-or-die time. As the New York Times explained:

Mr. Boehner stunned House Republicans Tuesday morning when he ditched a package that would have tied the debt ceiling increase to a repeal of cuts to military retirement pensions that had been approved in December and announced he would put a “clean” debt [repayment] ceiling increase up for a vote.

Enough Republicans had balked at that package when it was presented Monday night to convince the speaker he had no choice but to turn to the Democratic minority. It was another startling display of Republican disunity, fueled by the political ambitions of members seeking higher office and personal animus that burst into the open.

Angry right wing groups are calling for Boehner to be removed as speaker. That’s unlikely to happen, but it shows that the divisions within the Republican Party are deepening. Boehner and Cantor had no choice but to take a couple dozen Republicans with them and partner with Democrats to vote out this bill.

They know that further hostage-taking will only hurt their party’s standing. They simply can’t afford a return to the headlines of last October.

They were willing to side with the Republican Party base last fall because they thought they could best the White House in a game of chicken. But, unlike in the summer of 2011, President Obama refused to yield to their demands.

In mid-October, Republicans were forced to agree to end the completely unnecessary government shutdown they caused and allow Treasury to pay the bills for a few more months without having extracted any meaningful concessions.

We had wondered since whether they would try to once again use the threat of default as leverage for a grab bag of goodies. It certainly seems that many of them wanted to. But John Boehner correctly concluded there was nothing to gain and everything to lose. He and Eric Cantor thus allowed the Republican caucus to fracture, relying on Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats to provide the crucial votes needed to keep the United States of America from defaulting.

Democrats control the Senate, so assuming Republicans’ attempt to block this legislation from consideration can be overcome (Ted Cruz has, unsurprisingly, promised to filibuster it), it will soon be on President Obama’s desk.

  • RSS Recent entries from the Permanent Defense Media Center