 Well, folks, I've got a bit of a public service announcement for you tomorrow, May 3rd is the election between Nina Turner and Shantel Brown taking place in the 11th Congressional District of Ohio. And if you live in this district, get out and vote for Nina Turner. She is a true progressive fighter. We need someone like her in Congress. Not some fake progressive like Shantel Brown. Now, we talked about this race a couple of weeks ago, specifically within the context of who the Congressional Progressive Caucus endorsed, and they chose to snub Nina Turner in favor of Shantel Brown. Now, if you want to see what I said about that, you can go back and watch the video. But long story short, I said it was obviously dumb to do something like that because Shantel Brown isn't a real progressive. In fact, she's simultaneously a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the New Democrats Coalition. So progressive centrist, you're in competing ideological caucuses. So nobody believes that you're actually serious when you support policies like Medicare for all. We all know that you're just paying lip service to progressive ideas. But that's neither here nor there. I don't want to talk about my opinion because the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus weighed in on the endorsement because they heard our anger. So both Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan decided to weigh in and they both had absolutely just embarrassingly bad responses. So first and foremost, here's what Jayapal said. As Punchbowl News explains, in an interview, Jayapal defended the Brown endorsement, describing her as a progressive member in good standing for four months, who met all the qualifications laid out by the CPC. Jayapal also noted that even with the endorsement, the CPC's campaign arm hasn't put any money into the race. Jayapal denied this had anything to do with her future leadership goals. But she did confirm discussions within the CPC, particularly out of members only executive board meeting last week about changing its endorsement rules going forward. I understand the frustration and we're looking to see if we need to do anything to change the way we look at these things now. We don't want people to sign up for the CPC like right before an election. So we're definitely looking at that. Should we have a certain period of time, whether it's six months or a year or something that you have to be a member of the CPC and good standing? The other thing we're really looking at is do we need to have some kind of change in endorsement based on whether somebody accepts this kind of giant pack money, whether it's from the crypto billionaires or whether it's from the MFI, Democratic Majority for Israel. Now, this is a bad response and I'll tell you why. But first, I'll defend the response just because she says, yeah, maybe we should look into changing things. So that's at least a hint of self-awareness, which is something that we haven't seen from any progressive leader in Congress, perhaps in forever. So that's the silver lining. The bad news is that this is an absolutely terrible response because she's still defending the endorsement while acknowledging that maybe Chantel Brown is a bit of a corporatist. So if she's a corporate Democrat and you acknowledge that maybe you should change the rules, then why would you still defend what is objectively a bad endorsement from the perspective of a progressive member of Congress? I mean, she's a leader, so it's like she has to defend everything that they do, apparently. But no, you don't. You're the leader. The buck stops with you. You can institute these changes. You can at least get the ball rolling. And I think that people on the outside would stop viewing the Congressional Progressive Caucus as a bunch of jokes if they actually had some standards. I mean, would it be horrible to impose some sort of a litmus test that you can't take corporate PAC money if you want to be a member of this caucus? I mean, Chantel Brown, again, it is absurd that she's a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the New Democrats Coalition. They fight against everything that the progressive wants. So you have a saboteur in your ranks and you're defending this endorsement. What? Because you have to to keep up unity. I mean, fuck unity. What matters is actually getting things done. And the way that this caucus has operated has relegated them into joke status perpetually, progressives in the United States. They don't view this caucus as one that's actually effective. We view you as jokes because you are feckless. You can't get anything done. And the fact that somebody in the Congressional Progressive Caucus can be in good standing while taking millions of dollars from corporate PACs, that kind of is a catastrophic failure. Is it not? Now, when you hear what Mark Pokan had to say about this, the response to backlash that he gave, you'll think that Pramila Jayapal's response was actually much more self aware, much more articulate and better, because what he says is just honestly, it's it's a slap in the face. So this is according to Punch Bowl news again, Representative Mark Pokan, who co-chairs the CPC PAC, defended the process for considering endorsements, saying that CPC members are expected to co-sponsor priority bills, vote with the caucus and regularly participate in its meetings. All things Brown has done, if an incumbent is in good standing, which she is, then we have criteria that we've never had as stringent as this session, Pokan said. So not only is the endorsement good, but the endorsement process itself is good. And it's the most stringent it's ever had. I mean, Mark, do you understand that this is why we view you and the entire Progressive Caucus as jokes? Ideologically, we're aligned for the most part, right? I'm probably to the left of these leaders in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but that's neither here nor there. They, in theory, should be our biggest allies in Congress, but yet we view you as jokes because you do things like this. You defend the indefensible. You defend members of your caucus who shouldn't be members of your caucus because they take corporate money, because they are corrupted, because they're so brazen with their conflicts of interest and corruption that there is an ethics probe into one of them in Ohio, Chantel Brown. So I just to hear him say this is ridiculous. But in an interview with MSNBC, that case study QB shared on Twitter, you're going to see that he's going to continue to defend this horrible endorsement. And then he's going to reveal a really devastating fact about the entire Congressional Progressive Caucus, even members who, in theory, should know better. As you know, there's big disagreement right now in your caucus over this race. Chantel Brown versus Nina Turner. Bernie Sanders is standing by his endorsement of Nina Turner, despite the CPC's endorsement of Brown. And if you think about it, one of the strengths of your caucus is your ability to stay unified. What do you make of this divide? Does it spell trouble in the future for your caucus? We have almost a hundred members. And when we took the vote, no one voted not to endorse Chantel. So I don't know if the divide that some of the journalists in Washington, DC, for some of the Capitol newspapers like to say, but we didn't have it when we endorsed someone. And the good news is you've got two great progressives running. I mean, we like this option. What I don't want to have options is where we've got people who are not going to be supporting things like Medicare for All and other priorities. Here, you've got people who are. And I think at the end of the day, that's good for the people of Ohio and good for the American people, but people in that district will ultimately make the decision. So that right there is why progressives in Congress are so ineffectual. You know, all this time, my thinking was that, or rather my rationalization was that the buck really stops with leadership and that if, you know, they reformed the rules of leaders actually led, then perhaps, you know, other rank and file members of the congressional progressive caucus would file suit. Now, my thinking was that because in the first race between Nina Turner and Chantel Brown, you had everyone come out to endorse. Pramila Jayapal, AOC, Corey Bush, everyone, right? This time you see Bernie Sanders essentially and some other individuals, people who aren't in Congress, but members of Congress who are progressive, who in theory should want Nina Turner in, who I know want Nina Turner in, they didn't endorse. Now, my thinking was that they probably couldn't be in good standing with the congressional progressive caucus if they endorse against someone who the caucus has endorsed. But this detail here that Mark Pocan revealed is incredibly embarrassing. He said, when we took the vote, no one voted not to endorse Chantel Brown. Not a single progressive voted to not endorse Chantel Brown. Not even Corey Bush, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Jamal Bowman, Katie Porter. Not one. I mean, this is the chance when you can make your voice heard and they all chose to be cowards and sit back and do nothing. That is incredibly embarrassing and the fact that they didn't make their voices heard here shows that they're just, they're too afraid to stand up, right? Because they know if there's another primary race, perhaps Chantel Brown and her collection of colleagues who are corporates in the congressional progressive caucus can vote against them. But who cares? Who cares about the endorsement of the CPC? Really what I'm angry about is the principle here, right? I mean, they're endorsing an opponent to a progressive and not only is it one of the best progressives running for Congress, but it's one of the worst corporate Democrats who's in their ranks and they're endorsing this person. So the congressional progressive caucus should never do that. They should never affirmatively support someone who's antithetical, who's going to fight against everything that they purportedly believe in. But here, not a single progressive decided to stand up for Nina Turner. And you know, you would think that they would at least have one, right? Corey Bush, I understood that she had to have felt hurt when AOC didn't endorse her when she was running against Lacey Clay in 2020, right? In 2018, AOC tried very hard to get Corey Bush elected. But you know, in 2020, Lacey Clay co-sponsored the Green New Deal and perhaps other legislation that AOC was working on. So she chose to sit that race out. And I know that Corey Bush had to have been hurt by that, right? Because her and AOC are on the same page. Lacey Clay is a corporate Democrat. I get that you need to build these bridges and form relationships in Congress if you want to be effective. But at the same time, you have to leave the door open so other progressives can get in Congress so you don't have to make deals with the devils so much, right? But Corey Bush didn't even vote to not endorse Chantel Brown after that happened to her with AOC. So to me, this really, this isn't necessarily proof that they are like bad progressives and they like Chantel Brown. It's just evidence that they're too afraid to speak up. They don't want to, they don't want to stand up. They don't want to put targets on their back. And look, to some extent, I understand it. Like if you're Ilhan Omar, you get death threats constantly. So why rattle up, you know, anyone else in Congress? You know, at least on the outside of their yelling at you on the inside, perhaps things are a little bit more peaceful, maybe. But it's just, it's, it's embarrassing. It's so embarrassing. So every time a progressive gets elected to Congress, they're just going to be neutralized. Like, do you understand the message that this sends to people who are currently trying to get the 2022 round of progressives elected? It's going to tell everyone that, oh, well, what's the point? Because they're going to get there and they're just going to be fucking cowards. They're talking a big game now, as all of the squad did. But when they get to Congress, they're just going to be weak and ineffectual and kowtow to not just the CPC leadership who is weak and ineffectual, but the Democratic Party leadership, which is corrupt, right? So I mean, at some point, you have to do a little bit of self reflection. You've got to look in the mirror, be introspective for once and think, why am I viewed as such a laughing stock in Congress? Why is the congressional progressive caucus unable to get anything that we want to accomplish? Why is it that the moderate Democrats hold all the cards? It's not just that they have more numbers. It's because you all don't know how to strategize and you couldn't strategize to save your lives. Now, also, Mark Pokan said, the good news is you've got two great progressives running. We like this option. What I don't want to have options is where we have people who are not going to be supporting things like Medicare for all and other priorities. So let me just say this about Mark Pokan as a progressive ideologically when it comes to policy, I'm in lockstep with him. But strategically, he has no idea what he's doing. So let me just remind you that he endorsed Joe Kennedy over Ed Markey when one was the corporate Democrat and one was the true word progressive, albeit imperfect. But there was a clear difference between Joe Kennedy and Ed Markey and Mark Pokan endorsed the more corporate friendly Democrat. So really, I mean, if all you're looking for is just affirmation in the form of cosponsoring Medicare for all, then you're telling me that cosponsoring bills as a litmus test is no longer effective. We have to redo our litmus test if corporate Democrats are just cosponsoring it and getting progressives off their backs that way. Like to me in 2017 when we really called members of Congress to get them to cosponsor this type of legislation, Medicare for all, other progressive reforms, it meant that, you know, they were really taking a stand here. They were sending a message. But really now it's evident that a lot of them are full of shit. Tim Ryan kind of proved that how he and, you know, he cosponsored Medicare for all. And then when he ran for president, he said he'd vote against it if it came up. But like by the standards of Mark Pokan, anyone can be a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Conor Lamb was a Republican, basically. He could be a member if he just cosponsors Medicare for all. Richie Neal, Nancy Pelosi, any Democrat, even possibly a Republican, can be a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus so long as they cosponsor Medicare for all and attend the meetings. Like, do you understand how your caucus is going to get ideologically watered down? Do you see how the big tent thing that the Democrats have been pushing have made them a party that's ideologically inconsistent and they're battling with each other to where the moderates won't even let the corporate Democrats, and when I say moderates, I mean right-wing Democrats, but the moderates won't even let the corporate Democrats get the incrementalist reforms that we, you know, dreaded from Democrats because we always wanted them to do more. But you can't even get that now. So things are deteriorating going downhill and we have an entire caucus who's supposed to be helping the left in this country, supposed to be pushing left policies completely lost, not knowing what the fuck to do, not having the spine to do what they need to do, even if they knew what direction they should be headed in. It's just a joke, but it's just, it's frustrating because the one caucus who in theory should be fighting for progressives, completely clueless, completely feckless cowards, pathetic.