The Dems’ Martian Candidate

Kesha Rogers has campaigned on colonizing Mars and impeaching Obama. Meet the congressional candidate the Texas Democratic Party refuses to recognize.

Courtesy Kesha Rogers Campaign

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


If elected to Congress, Kesha Rogers has an ambitious agenda. She has campaigned on colonizing Mars, impeaching President Obama, and freeing America from the clutches of the British Empire. But first, the improbable Democratic nominee in Texas’s 22nd district just wants to win recognition from her fellow party members. A devotee of Lyndon LaRouche—the fringe leader whose following is more often likened to a cult than a political movement—Rogers shocked Texas Democrats by winning the House primary race in March, carrying 53 percent of the vote in an anemic three-way contest in Tom DeLay’s old district.

Rogers poses little threat to incumbent Rep. Pete Olson in the securely Republican district, located in the southern Houston area. But her extreme views have prompted the state party to disavow her. Since her primary win, the Texas Democratic Party has refused to even list her on the party’s website. The party has defended its actions by saying that the LaRouche movement has had a long history of “illegal activities, discriminatory proclamations and thuggish behavior.”

But in late June, that didn’t stop Rogers from showing up with a posse of her supporters at the state party’s annual convention in Corpus Christi, where they handed out leaflets and periodically broke into song—Mozart’s “Ave Verum Corpus,” to be precise, to emphasize the LaRouche movement’s belief in a classical Western education. “People were very moved by this,” Rogers says. “They want leadership, they want beauty.” Rogers adds that some delegates even contributed money to her campaign on the spot, though she couldn’t specify exactly how much she raked in at the event.

Outside the convention center, however, the scene was less than harmonious. About a dozen of Rogers’ supporters were ordered to move off the grounds, prohibited from wearing their campaign T-shirts or distributing campaign literature on the premises since they were not official delegates. They ended up moving their operation to the sidewalk a few blocks down the road. Matt Glazer, an Austin Democratic strategist who attended the convention, declined to take a flyer from one LaRouche supporter—and says he was verbally assailed as a result. “He screamed out, ‘You guys are just as bad as the Republicans—as the Nazis,'” says Glazer, who claims the man continued by “calling me everything from a fag to an asshole, to telling me I had mental disabilities.”

Rogers, who is African American, says that she doesn’t condone such statements, insisting there’s a difference between the alleged insults and her own immovable belief that Obama’s health-care law is Hitleresque. “If we put a mustache on the president and said he should be impeached for supporting a policy that’s like Hitler’s, that’s different than saying anybody supporting the president is a Nazi,” says Rogers, who’s currently the only self-proclaimed “LaRouche Democrat” nominated for federal office.

During her primary campaign, the 31-year-old Rogers toted around the LaRouche movement’s now-ubiquitous sign of Obama with the Hitler ‘stache to promote her candidacy. Unlike South Carolina’s Alvin Greene—the unemployed candidate from nowhere to whom she’s sometimes been compared—Rogers has become a regular sight on the campaign trail. Raising a very modest $16,000 in campaign funds, mostly in individual donations, she has hired a truck to cruise through her district draped with a huge yellow banner bearing her campaign slogan: “Save NASA, Impeach Obama!” And Rogers and her small group of LaRouche activists have been actively canvassing and registering voters since the start of her campaign last winter.

Though Rogers considers herself a full-time activist with the LaRouche Youth Movement—which spreads the LaRouche gospel on college campuses—she’s repeatedly dived into Democratic politics as well. In 2003, she was elected to become a local Democratic precinct chair in Harris County, serving for two years before she made an ultimately unsuccessful bid for chair of the Texas Democratic Party in 2006. “She was a very good speaker—very articulate, very passionate,” says political consultant Harold Cook, former executive director of the Texas Democratic Party, recalling Rogers’ speech. “She didn’t mention in her speech a single wacky thing that she believes…If I didn’t know her, I might have voted for her, too.”

Her other two primary opponents, by contrast, barely registered on the trail. One was a local systems analyst backed by local Democratic and labor groups (who received $2,600 from the state party) but only got 28 percent of the vote. The third, a preacher who previously ran as Libertarian, pulled 20 percent. “[Rogers] had active grassroots young people that knocked on doors and pushed her name,” says Richard Morrison, the area’s Democratic county commissioner, who ran unsuccessfully against DeLay for the same seat in 2004. “She frankly just outworked her opponents.”

Local Democrats insist that voters in the district must not have been paying much attention when Rogers was out campaigning—otherwise they would have certainly been alarmed at her beliefs. Propagating LaRouche’s worldview that “the British Empire is the enemy,” Rogers regularly derides Obama as “a puppet of London” and warns that the greatest threat to the country is “the financial cartels of London and Wall Street”—which she believes are in turn controlled by the British monarchy. At the Texas Democratic convention, she handed out flyers that warned of the “New Dark Age” that “the City of London/Wall Street fascists” had imposed upon the US—and condemned the “pathetic hacks” in the Texas Democratic Party who were trying to suppress her. On Rogers’ campaign website, a video recapping the state party convention is titled “Down With the Traitors.”

Texas Dems also point out that there were two other African American candidates in contested local races on the primary ballot in March, suggesting that race might have played a role in Rogers’ primary victory as well—particularly as female black voters are a major part of the Democratic base in Texas. Rogers’ name also appeared first on the ballot, which could have given her an advantage. “If you didn’t research the things she said and didn’t find out her views, she looked like a hard-working, young African-American female that deserved your vote,” says Morrison. “But if you scratched beneath the surface—whoo…”

The Texas Democratic Party admits that it had invested very little in the race, believing it wasn’t worth their while to try and unseat Olson. “We could have done a better job of educating the voters on what the candidates’ positions were,” state party executive director Anthony Gutierrez told Time. (The Texas Democratic Party has refused further comment.) Though the stakes are low in the 22nd district, some Texas Dems worry that Rogers’ candidacy won’t help the credibility of a party that’s still trying to rebuild in the state. “It certainly soils our image,” says Morrison. “It does nothing for [us] to have somebody that extreme as our nominee.”

Rogers maintains that she’s tapped into a genuine well of frustration in the district—and that it’s simply the state party brass who’ve exiled her because “they’re scared of the truth.” “Everything that we did was very much visible, and the response we got was that a lot of people were demoralized by the leadership,” she says. And Rogers isn’t planning to let up with the rest of her campaign, with a townhall planned for the end of the July and weekly “policy meetings” at a coffee shop in Seabrook, a working-class town bordering Galveston Bay.

The Texas Democrats may have all but given up on the district, but the same can’t be said for Rogers’ small band of devotees, who’ve shown up at everything from city hall speeches to tea party rallies. Morrison recalls back in February when the activists surfaced at a Chamber of Commerce event in Needville, a tiny ranching and farming town south of Houston, set up a “Kesha for Congress” campaign booth, and proceeded to break out into song. “It was pretty disruptive,” recalls Morrison, who was at the meeting. “But none of her opponents showed up.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate