TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
Sellouts
the enemy within
In political movements a "sellout" is a person or group claiming to adhere to one ideology, only to follow these claims up with actions contradicting them, such as a revolutionary group claiming to fight for a particular cause, but failing to continue this upon obtaining power.
jan 13, 2020
They lack ideas, courage, and competence so they find happiness riding a fence while not pissing off society's oppressors. The defend the status quo while lying about supporting progress. They are the very definition of "kind of pregnant"
Sellouts
*Corporate Democrats Desperately Want a Sanders-Warren Feud
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Democratic Party Backs ALEC Alumnus Congressman Against Progressive Challenger
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*The Centrist’s dictionary: Here’s what corporate Democrats really mean when they say things like ‘purity test’(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Revealed: RNC and DNC awash with corporate cash from donors seeking access
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*RALPH NADER BREAKS DOWN HOW DEMOCRATS CAVED IN SECRET BUDGET DEAL WITH TRUMP:
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Gabbard votes "present" on impeachment
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Top Dem accused of putting private equity before sick and poor by killing effort to end ‘devastating’ surprise medical bills(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Wall Street banks court moderate Democrats to blunt Warren's hostility
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*TRUMP-FRIENDLY CALIFORNIA DEMOCRAT IS FACING HIS FIRST SERIOUS PRIMARY CHALLENGER
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Press Watch: Democrats who are undecided on impeachment aren't "moderates." They're hacks(ARTICLE BELOW)
*SCHUMER SCORCHED FOR WHITEWASHING PETE KING’S RACIST, ANTI-ISLAM, ANTI-LGBTQ RECORD AS SOON AS HE ANNOUNCED HIS RETIREMENT
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*CENTRIST DEMOCRATS HAVE A NEW IDEA TO WIN REELECTION: IGNORE LABOR AND GIVE TRUMP A MAJOR TRADE DEAL(ARTICLE BELOW)
*CENTRIST DEMOCRATS, LED BY REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER, TO FUNDRAISE WITH CORPORATE LOBBY GROUP SEEKING TO DEFEAT DEMOCRATIC AGENDA(ARTICLE BELOW)
*JOE BIDEN’S SUPER PAC IS BEING ORGANIZED BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS FOR HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, WEAPONS MAKERS, FINANCE(ARTICLE BELOW)
*WAYS AND MEANS CHAIR RICHARD NEAL SIDES WITH PHARMA AND GOP AGAINST AMENDMENTS TO STRENGTHEN DRUG-PRICING BILL(ARTICLE BELOW)
*The more Joe Biden stumbles, the more corporate democrats freak out
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Demand Justice targets Democratic Sen. Chris Coons for voting in favor of Trump judicial nominees(ARTICLE BELOW)
*EXXON MOBIL IS FUNDING CENTRIST DEMOCRATIC THINK TANK, DISCLOSURES REVEAL
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Why Is a Freshman Democrat Attacking Progressives in a Washington Post Series?
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*THE KOCHS FUNDED THIRD WAY TO PUSH FREE TRADE TO DEMOCRATS, NEW BOOK SAYS
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Maxine Waters Puts Corporate Democrats to Shame
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Union leaders rebuke centrist Democrats for claiming Medicare for All would harm workers
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*'An existential threat': Bernie Sanders faces mounting opposition from moderate Democrats
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*“Moderate” Democrats Are Really Conservatives — and They Are Dangerous
(ARTICLE BELOW)
cartoons(at the end)
OPINION
Corporate Democrats Desperately Want a Sanders-Warren Feud
Norman Solomon - truthdig
1/13/20
Corporate Democrats got a jolt at the end of last week when the highly regarded Iowa Poll showed Bernie Sanders surging into first place among Iowans likely to vote in the state’s Feb. 3 caucuses. The other big change was a steep drop for the previous Iowa frontrunner, Pete Buttigieg, who — along with Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden — came in a few percent behind Sanders. The latest poll was bad news for corporate interests, but their prospects brightened a bit over the weekend when Politico reported: “The nonaggression pact between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren is seriously fraying.”
The reason for that conclusion? While speaking with voters, some Sanders volunteers were using a script saying that Warren supporters “are highly educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what” and that “she’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”
At last, mainstream journalists could begin to report the kind of conflict that many had long been yearning for. As Politico mentioned in the same article, Sanders and Warren “have largely abstained from attacking one another despite regular prodding from reporters.”
That “regular prodding from reporters” should be understood in an ideological context. Overall, far-reaching progressive proposals like Medicare for All have received negative coverage from corporate media. Yet during debates, Sanders and Warren have been an effective tag team while defending such proposals. The media establishment would love to see Sanders and Warren clashing instead of cooperating.
For progressives, the need for a Sanders-Warren united front is crucial. Yes, there are some significant differences between the two candidates, especially on foreign policy (which is one of the reasons that I actively support Sanders). Those differences should be aired in the open, while maintaining a tactical alliance.
Sustaining progressive momentum for both Sanders and Warren is essential for preventing the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination from going to the likes of Biden or Buttigieg — a grim outcome that would certainly gratify the 44 billionaires and their spouses who’ve donated to Biden, the 40 billionaires and their spouses who’ve donated to Buttigieg, and the oligarchic interests they represent.
It would be a serious error for progressives to buy into corporate media portrayals of the Sanders and Warren campaigns as destined to play a traditional zero-sum political game. The chances are high that by the time the primaries end this spring, Sanders and Warren — as well as their supporters — will need to join forces so one of them can become the nominee at the Democratic National Convention in mid-July.
In the meantime, during the next few months, top corporate Democrats certainly hope to see a lot more headlines like one that greeted New York Times readers Monday morning: “Elizabeth Warren Says Bernie Sanders Sent Volunteers ‘Out to Trash Me’.”
(Sanders tried to defuse what he called a “media blow up” on Sunday, saying: “We have hundreds of employees. Elizabeth Warren has hundreds of employees. And people sometimes say things that they shouldn’t.” And: “Elizabeth Warren is a very good friend of mine. No one is going to trash Elizabeth Warren.”)
Keeping eyes on the prize this year will require a united front that can strengthen progressive forces, prevent any corporate Democrat from winning the party’s presidential nomination, and then go on to defeat Donald Trump
The reason for that conclusion? While speaking with voters, some Sanders volunteers were using a script saying that Warren supporters “are highly educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what” and that “she’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”
At last, mainstream journalists could begin to report the kind of conflict that many had long been yearning for. As Politico mentioned in the same article, Sanders and Warren “have largely abstained from attacking one another despite regular prodding from reporters.”
That “regular prodding from reporters” should be understood in an ideological context. Overall, far-reaching progressive proposals like Medicare for All have received negative coverage from corporate media. Yet during debates, Sanders and Warren have been an effective tag team while defending such proposals. The media establishment would love to see Sanders and Warren clashing instead of cooperating.
For progressives, the need for a Sanders-Warren united front is crucial. Yes, there are some significant differences between the two candidates, especially on foreign policy (which is one of the reasons that I actively support Sanders). Those differences should be aired in the open, while maintaining a tactical alliance.
Sustaining progressive momentum for both Sanders and Warren is essential for preventing the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination from going to the likes of Biden or Buttigieg — a grim outcome that would certainly gratify the 44 billionaires and their spouses who’ve donated to Biden, the 40 billionaires and their spouses who’ve donated to Buttigieg, and the oligarchic interests they represent.
It would be a serious error for progressives to buy into corporate media portrayals of the Sanders and Warren campaigns as destined to play a traditional zero-sum political game. The chances are high that by the time the primaries end this spring, Sanders and Warren — as well as their supporters — will need to join forces so one of them can become the nominee at the Democratic National Convention in mid-July.
In the meantime, during the next few months, top corporate Democrats certainly hope to see a lot more headlines like one that greeted New York Times readers Monday morning: “Elizabeth Warren Says Bernie Sanders Sent Volunteers ‘Out to Trash Me’.”
(Sanders tried to defuse what he called a “media blow up” on Sunday, saying: “We have hundreds of employees. Elizabeth Warren has hundreds of employees. And people sometimes say things that they shouldn’t.” And: “Elizabeth Warren is a very good friend of mine. No one is going to trash Elizabeth Warren.”)
Keeping eyes on the prize this year will require a united front that can strengthen progressive forces, prevent any corporate Democrat from winning the party’s presidential nomination, and then go on to defeat Donald Trump
Democratic Party Backs ALEC Alumnus Congressman Against Progressive Challenger
BY Donald Shaw, Sludge - truthout
PUBLISHED January 8, 2020
Democratic Rep. Tom O’Halleran of Arizona’s First Congressional District is affiliated with an organization that promotes conservative legislation across the country, yet top House Democrats and Democratic Party groups are backing him against a primary challenge from his left.
O’Halleran is listed as an alumnus of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that brings corporations, lobbyists and lawmakers together to co-write bills, on the group’s website. “ALEC alumni advance limited government, free market and federalism priorities at every level of elected office,” the website states. O’Halleran was a Republican state legislator in Arizona from 2001 to 2009.
ALEC has had a profound impact on Republican policies since its founding in 1973. The group, which has deep ties to the Koch network, has been behind dozens of rightwing proposals that have passed at the state and federal levels, including “stand your ground” gun laws, restrictive voter ID requirements, and limits on the federal government’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases. The group has also worked directly with congressional Republicans through a partnership it formed in 2012 with the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of conservative House members.
O’Halleran’s office told Sludge that the representative does not pay dues to ALEC and that he should not be listed on the website. “Our team is reaching out to ALEC to get Rep. O’Halleran removed from their website today, the representative’s spokesperson said in an email to Sludge. “ALEC may try to claim Tom O’Halleran, but Tom O’Halleran opposes the radical policies ALEC stands for.”
During his time in Congress, O’Halleran has joined the GOP on numerous votes. In 2017, he voted for two anti-regulation bills put forward by Republicans, Rep. Jason Smith’s (R-Mo.) SCRUB Act, which would establish a commission to identify regulations that should be repealed because they impose a burden on industry, and Rep. Bob Gibbs’ (R-Ohio) “Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act,” which would eliminate federal and state regulations of pesticide disposal in navigable waterways. In 2018, he voted in favor of a resolution from Rep. Steve Sclaise (R-La.) expressing that “a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.” He voted in favor of a resolution from Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) praising U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and denounced calls for it to be abolished.
O’Halleran’s ideology score, as calculated by the nonpartisan website GovTrack, was the seventh most conservative among all House Democrats during the 2017-18 session of Congress.
O’Halleran is facing a primary challenge from Democrat Eva Putzova, a former member of the Flagstaff City Council who has been endorsed by progressive groups Brand New Congress and Progressive Democrats of America. Putzova supports the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, and tuition-free college, according to the issue page on her website.
Putzova condemned O’Halleran’s affiliation with ALEC in an email to Sludge.
“ALEC has produced model bills for conservative and right wing legislators for combating immigration, loosening environmental regulations, tightening voter identification rules, weakening labor unions and opposing gun control, Putzova said. “All these proposals harm the interests of people in my district. Representative O’Halleran should be ashamed of himself for being an alumnus of ALEC.”
Putzova, who said on Twitter that her campaign has 1,500 unique donors, has pledged not to take money from corporate PACs. By contrast, O’Halleran took $271,784 from business PACs, as categorized by the Center for Responsive Politics, during the first three quarters of 2019. As of the end of the third quarter last year, his campaign had $574,079 cash on hand, while Putzova’s campaign reported $11,347 in cash on hand. There are two more candidates who have declared for the AZ-1 Democratic primary, but neither has reported any fundraising or campaign spending to the Federal Election Commission.
So far in the 2019-20 election cycle, O’Halleran has received at least $20,000 from PACs of companies and trade groups that are members or funders of ALEC as of last year, including from the PACs of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association ($1,000), The American Bankers Association ($5,000), T-Mobile ($1,000), Entergy ($2,000), Pfizer ($2,000), and Century Link ($2,000).
O’Halleran has also received $5,900 since 2017 from Russel Smoldon, a former member of ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Council and a former ALEC private sector state chairman. The private sector state chairmen help ALEC raise money for its scholarship fund, which it uses to finance travel and gifts for lawmakers.
O’Halleran, who is in his second term, recently gained a new position in the House from which to do the work of an ALEC alumnus. In 2019, he was named co-chair of policy for the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of centrist House Democrats who work to push the Democratic caucus to the right and often vote with Republicans. The Blue Dog Coalition currently has 25 members, making up a subset of 103 members of the moderate New Democrat Coalition in the federal legislature’s lower chamber.
Establishment Support
Despite O’Halleran’s affiliation with ALEC and his conservative voting record, the Democratic Party is sticking by him in his race against Putzova.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has added O’Halleran to its Frontline Program, which provides 44 Democratic incumbents it views as vulnerable with “access to strategic analysis, campaign guidance and fundraising prioritization to ensure they have both the resources and cutting edge information they need to execute effective reelection campaigns.”
The DCCC gave O’Halleran $718 in the first three quarters of 2019. The leadership PACs of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) both gave O’Halleran $10,000 in 2019.
Last year, the DCCC established a policy of not hiring any political vendors that work with Democratic primary challengers.
“Early on, we had one company refusing to engage with us and specifically mentioned that they signed the DCCC ‘pledge,’ Putzova said. “Maybe because we work with smaller, progressive companies, the real effect of the DCCC blacklisting on our campaign was marginal. We still think it’s utterly undemocratic and unethical.”
Not Just O’Halleran
In total, four Democratic members of Congress are alumni of ALEC. Besides O’Halleran, they include Rep. Al Lawson (D-Fla.), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).
Several of the Demoratic ALEC alumni have been given coveted committee assignments and party positions by Democratic Party leadership.
Manchin, who has one of the worst environmental records of all Democrats in Congress, was named chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 2019 by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Wasserman Schultz was selected by former President Barack Obama to serve as chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2011 (she resigned in 2016 after leaked emails showed DNC officials conspiring to help Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primary). O’Halleran was given a seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the most prized committee assignments in the House.
O’Halleran is listed as an alumnus of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that brings corporations, lobbyists and lawmakers together to co-write bills, on the group’s website. “ALEC alumni advance limited government, free market and federalism priorities at every level of elected office,” the website states. O’Halleran was a Republican state legislator in Arizona from 2001 to 2009.
ALEC has had a profound impact on Republican policies since its founding in 1973. The group, which has deep ties to the Koch network, has been behind dozens of rightwing proposals that have passed at the state and federal levels, including “stand your ground” gun laws, restrictive voter ID requirements, and limits on the federal government’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases. The group has also worked directly with congressional Republicans through a partnership it formed in 2012 with the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of conservative House members.
O’Halleran’s office told Sludge that the representative does not pay dues to ALEC and that he should not be listed on the website. “Our team is reaching out to ALEC to get Rep. O’Halleran removed from their website today, the representative’s spokesperson said in an email to Sludge. “ALEC may try to claim Tom O’Halleran, but Tom O’Halleran opposes the radical policies ALEC stands for.”
During his time in Congress, O’Halleran has joined the GOP on numerous votes. In 2017, he voted for two anti-regulation bills put forward by Republicans, Rep. Jason Smith’s (R-Mo.) SCRUB Act, which would establish a commission to identify regulations that should be repealed because they impose a burden on industry, and Rep. Bob Gibbs’ (R-Ohio) “Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act,” which would eliminate federal and state regulations of pesticide disposal in navigable waterways. In 2018, he voted in favor of a resolution from Rep. Steve Sclaise (R-La.) expressing that “a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.” He voted in favor of a resolution from Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) praising U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and denounced calls for it to be abolished.
O’Halleran’s ideology score, as calculated by the nonpartisan website GovTrack, was the seventh most conservative among all House Democrats during the 2017-18 session of Congress.
O’Halleran is facing a primary challenge from Democrat Eva Putzova, a former member of the Flagstaff City Council who has been endorsed by progressive groups Brand New Congress and Progressive Democrats of America. Putzova supports the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, and tuition-free college, according to the issue page on her website.
Putzova condemned O’Halleran’s affiliation with ALEC in an email to Sludge.
“ALEC has produced model bills for conservative and right wing legislators for combating immigration, loosening environmental regulations, tightening voter identification rules, weakening labor unions and opposing gun control, Putzova said. “All these proposals harm the interests of people in my district. Representative O’Halleran should be ashamed of himself for being an alumnus of ALEC.”
Putzova, who said on Twitter that her campaign has 1,500 unique donors, has pledged not to take money from corporate PACs. By contrast, O’Halleran took $271,784 from business PACs, as categorized by the Center for Responsive Politics, during the first three quarters of 2019. As of the end of the third quarter last year, his campaign had $574,079 cash on hand, while Putzova’s campaign reported $11,347 in cash on hand. There are two more candidates who have declared for the AZ-1 Democratic primary, but neither has reported any fundraising or campaign spending to the Federal Election Commission.
So far in the 2019-20 election cycle, O’Halleran has received at least $20,000 from PACs of companies and trade groups that are members or funders of ALEC as of last year, including from the PACs of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association ($1,000), The American Bankers Association ($5,000), T-Mobile ($1,000), Entergy ($2,000), Pfizer ($2,000), and Century Link ($2,000).
O’Halleran has also received $5,900 since 2017 from Russel Smoldon, a former member of ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Council and a former ALEC private sector state chairman. The private sector state chairmen help ALEC raise money for its scholarship fund, which it uses to finance travel and gifts for lawmakers.
O’Halleran, who is in his second term, recently gained a new position in the House from which to do the work of an ALEC alumnus. In 2019, he was named co-chair of policy for the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of centrist House Democrats who work to push the Democratic caucus to the right and often vote with Republicans. The Blue Dog Coalition currently has 25 members, making up a subset of 103 members of the moderate New Democrat Coalition in the federal legislature’s lower chamber.
Establishment Support
Despite O’Halleran’s affiliation with ALEC and his conservative voting record, the Democratic Party is sticking by him in his race against Putzova.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has added O’Halleran to its Frontline Program, which provides 44 Democratic incumbents it views as vulnerable with “access to strategic analysis, campaign guidance and fundraising prioritization to ensure they have both the resources and cutting edge information they need to execute effective reelection campaigns.”
The DCCC gave O’Halleran $718 in the first three quarters of 2019. The leadership PACs of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) both gave O’Halleran $10,000 in 2019.
Last year, the DCCC established a policy of not hiring any political vendors that work with Democratic primary challengers.
“Early on, we had one company refusing to engage with us and specifically mentioned that they signed the DCCC ‘pledge,’ Putzova said. “Maybe because we work with smaller, progressive companies, the real effect of the DCCC blacklisting on our campaign was marginal. We still think it’s utterly undemocratic and unethical.”
Not Just O’Halleran
In total, four Democratic members of Congress are alumni of ALEC. Besides O’Halleran, they include Rep. Al Lawson (D-Fla.), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).
Several of the Demoratic ALEC alumni have been given coveted committee assignments and party positions by Democratic Party leadership.
Manchin, who has one of the worst environmental records of all Democrats in Congress, was named chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 2019 by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Wasserman Schultz was selected by former President Barack Obama to serve as chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2011 (she resigned in 2016 after leaked emails showed DNC officials conspiring to help Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primary). O’Halleran was given a seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the most prized committee assignments in the House.
The Centrist’s dictionary: Here’s what corporate Democrats really mean when they say things like ‘purity test’
Richard J. Eskow / Independent Media Institute - alternet
January 6, 2020
...Presumably, every Democratic primary voter has some core values that any candidate must at least nominally endorse to get their support. What makes one position a “value” and another a “purity test”? Given the confusion caused by this and other terms, and as an aid to the general public, here’s a guide to centrist terminology.
The Centrist’s Dictionary
“Centrist”
Someone who presents a corporate-friendly agenda with less fervor than the typical Republican, with a modest measure of regulation as demanded by circumstances and with a patina of social liberalism.
“Choice” (when applied to a public good)
A word used as an attempt to distract people from the flawed state of the American social contract by forcing them to choose from an array of semi-functional, overpriced private-sector products. This allows policymakers to subsidize private corporations at public expense, while at the same time providing the public with something that loosely resembles—but is not—a functioning social safety net.
“Compete” (as in, “prepare workers of the future to compete”)
A word used to describe what workers will be required to do to survive in the new, Randian economy. For example, to become competitive, workers are sometimes expected to run through a gauntlet of poorly conceived and insufficiently funded educational programs to re-train them for the “new economy” (defined below), often under the assumption that there is a secret app designer hiding inside every laid-off manufacturing employee. To “compete” after training, workers should be prepared to fight like crabs in a barrel for low-paying jobs that provide no employment security or benefits. (See also: “Jobs of the future,” defined below.)
“Free stuff”
A term of contemptuous dismissal for public services that are commonly available in other developed countries, and which any decent society would make available to all human beings.
“Friend of mine” (as in, “John McCain was a friend of mine”)
A declaration of sentimental attachment not only to an individual across the aisle, but also to a long-passed era of comity between powerful individuals from both political parties. The term reflects an unwillingness to accept the cynicism and depravity of today’s GOP. It may also indicate a willingness to use “bipartisanship” as a cover for offering conservative policies by pretending they are needed to attract Republican votes (which they will not do).
“Health care consumers”
People who are forced to choose from a bewildering array of inadequate private health options, based on future needs they can’t anticipate, as offered by private corporations that benefit financially by confusing them now and denying them medical care later. The word “consumers” allows policymakers to accuse individuals of not being “smart shoppers” when things go wrong, thereby deflecting blame away from both themselves and the corporations.
“I don’t think anyone has a monopoly on bold ideas”
I don’t have any bold ideas.
“I know how to get things done”
I intend to keep using a political approach that hasn’t gotten anything done for years.
“I will not raise taxes one penny on the middle class”
I’ll let corporations keep ripping the nearly-vanished “middle class” off instead, charging people more than they’d pay in taxes while providing less in services—and without public oversight or accountability.
“I’m pragmatic”
I don’t believe that a country that won two world wars, rebuilt its economy with the New Deal after the Great Depression, created Medicare and Social Security, developed the internet at public expense, and sent several manned missions to the moon can do big things.
“Ideology” (as in, “I don’t believe in rigid adherence to any political ideology”)
A pejorative term for principles and/or core values.
“Jobs of the future”
Menial piecework tasks, parceled out through apps that force workers into 12-hour days in the hopes they can eke out a living through a lifetime of endless servility.
“Managed competition”
Managed confusion. (See “Choice,” above.)
“New economy”
Same as the old economy (circa 19th century), but the boss wears a turtleneck or a hoodie.
“Our country needs to balance its budget like a family sitting around the kitchen table”
Definition 1: I don’t understand how finance works.
Definition 2: I don’t want you to understand how finance works.
“Pipe dream”
Any bold idea I don’t support.
“Privatization”
Theft of public resources.
“Public/private partnership”
See above; the exploitation of public resources for private profit.
“Purity test”
Any belief or policy I won’t espouse because it would alienate my funders, but that I won’t openly oppose because it’s popular with voters. It implies that people who support it are rigid and unreasonable, rather than principled and thoughtful.
“Reaching across the aisle”
A coded message to big-money donors that you will not fight for the policies you claim to believe in.
“Realistic” (as in, “Your proposal (backed by a large majority of voters) isn’t realistic”)
We don’t live in a functioning democracy and I don’t plan to do anything about it.
“Rich kids/Trump’s kids” (as in, “I don’t want to give free college to Donald Trump’s kids”)
1) I believe that social program X is a commodity, not a public good; 2) if I really cared about economic inequality, I’d raise taxes on the Trumps of this world to pay for it, and 3) my logic could be applied to elementary schools, too, so I hope you don’t think about what I’m saying too much.
“Something we can get done” (as in, “The public option is something we can get done”)
A cautious proposal that can’t get passed as long as Republicans control the Senate, but will not inspire voters to turn the Senate Democratic. In other words, something that can’t get done.
“Universal coverage”
The stated goal of providing every American with inadequate health insurance that ensures neither financial security nor decent medical care.
“You can be progressive and practical at the same time”
I am neither progressive nor practical.
The Centrist’s Dictionary
“Centrist”
Someone who presents a corporate-friendly agenda with less fervor than the typical Republican, with a modest measure of regulation as demanded by circumstances and with a patina of social liberalism.
“Choice” (when applied to a public good)
A word used as an attempt to distract people from the flawed state of the American social contract by forcing them to choose from an array of semi-functional, overpriced private-sector products. This allows policymakers to subsidize private corporations at public expense, while at the same time providing the public with something that loosely resembles—but is not—a functioning social safety net.
“Compete” (as in, “prepare workers of the future to compete”)
A word used to describe what workers will be required to do to survive in the new, Randian economy. For example, to become competitive, workers are sometimes expected to run through a gauntlet of poorly conceived and insufficiently funded educational programs to re-train them for the “new economy” (defined below), often under the assumption that there is a secret app designer hiding inside every laid-off manufacturing employee. To “compete” after training, workers should be prepared to fight like crabs in a barrel for low-paying jobs that provide no employment security or benefits. (See also: “Jobs of the future,” defined below.)
“Free stuff”
A term of contemptuous dismissal for public services that are commonly available in other developed countries, and which any decent society would make available to all human beings.
“Friend of mine” (as in, “John McCain was a friend of mine”)
A declaration of sentimental attachment not only to an individual across the aisle, but also to a long-passed era of comity between powerful individuals from both political parties. The term reflects an unwillingness to accept the cynicism and depravity of today’s GOP. It may also indicate a willingness to use “bipartisanship” as a cover for offering conservative policies by pretending they are needed to attract Republican votes (which they will not do).
“Health care consumers”
People who are forced to choose from a bewildering array of inadequate private health options, based on future needs they can’t anticipate, as offered by private corporations that benefit financially by confusing them now and denying them medical care later. The word “consumers” allows policymakers to accuse individuals of not being “smart shoppers” when things go wrong, thereby deflecting blame away from both themselves and the corporations.
“I don’t think anyone has a monopoly on bold ideas”
I don’t have any bold ideas.
“I know how to get things done”
I intend to keep using a political approach that hasn’t gotten anything done for years.
“I will not raise taxes one penny on the middle class”
I’ll let corporations keep ripping the nearly-vanished “middle class” off instead, charging people more than they’d pay in taxes while providing less in services—and without public oversight or accountability.
“I’m pragmatic”
I don’t believe that a country that won two world wars, rebuilt its economy with the New Deal after the Great Depression, created Medicare and Social Security, developed the internet at public expense, and sent several manned missions to the moon can do big things.
“Ideology” (as in, “I don’t believe in rigid adherence to any political ideology”)
A pejorative term for principles and/or core values.
“Jobs of the future”
Menial piecework tasks, parceled out through apps that force workers into 12-hour days in the hopes they can eke out a living through a lifetime of endless servility.
“Managed competition”
Managed confusion. (See “Choice,” above.)
“New economy”
Same as the old economy (circa 19th century), but the boss wears a turtleneck or a hoodie.
“Our country needs to balance its budget like a family sitting around the kitchen table”
Definition 1: I don’t understand how finance works.
Definition 2: I don’t want you to understand how finance works.
“Pipe dream”
Any bold idea I don’t support.
“Privatization”
Theft of public resources.
“Public/private partnership”
See above; the exploitation of public resources for private profit.
“Purity test”
Any belief or policy I won’t espouse because it would alienate my funders, but that I won’t openly oppose because it’s popular with voters. It implies that people who support it are rigid and unreasonable, rather than principled and thoughtful.
“Reaching across the aisle”
A coded message to big-money donors that you will not fight for the policies you claim to believe in.
“Realistic” (as in, “Your proposal (backed by a large majority of voters) isn’t realistic”)
We don’t live in a functioning democracy and I don’t plan to do anything about it.
“Rich kids/Trump’s kids” (as in, “I don’t want to give free college to Donald Trump’s kids”)
1) I believe that social program X is a commodity, not a public good; 2) if I really cared about economic inequality, I’d raise taxes on the Trumps of this world to pay for it, and 3) my logic could be applied to elementary schools, too, so I hope you don’t think about what I’m saying too much.
“Something we can get done” (as in, “The public option is something we can get done”)
A cautious proposal that can’t get passed as long as Republicans control the Senate, but will not inspire voters to turn the Senate Democratic. In other words, something that can’t get done.
“Universal coverage”
The stated goal of providing every American with inadequate health insurance that ensures neither financial security nor decent medical care.
“You can be progressive and practical at the same time”
I am neither progressive nor practical.
US elections 2020
Revealed: RNC and DNC awash with corporate cash from donors seeking access
The big bucks sponsorship packages raise sticky questions for both parties as organizers go after major donors to raise money
Ed Pilkington in New York
the guardian
Mon 23 Dec 2019 03.45 EST
Next year’s national political conventions, where Donald Trump and the winner of the Democratic primaries will be enshrined as their parties’ candidates in the 2020 presidential election, will be awash with corporate cash from donors seeking access, their marketing plans reveal.
Organizers of both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions are going after major corporate donors appealing for huge lump sums as they scramble to raise the money needed to bankroll the made-for-television events.
Fundraising materials show that both parties are hoping to lure $1m donations from corporations and wealthy individuals in exchange for access and advertising opportunities.
The big bucks sponsorship packages raise potentially sticky questions for both parties. The Republicans are effectively offering exclusive briefings with the leaders of the Trump re-election campaign in return for cash.
The Democrats may face difficult ethical issues were either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to win the nomination. Both have shunned big money donations in the early stages of the election and Sanders has indicated he might try to do the same for the Democratic convention were he to become his party’s nominee.
The scale of the parties’ ambitions is disclosed in marketing materials provided to the Guardian by Documented, a watchdog group that investigates how corporations manipulate public policy.
The host committee for the Republican National Convention pitches its offering in the most enticing language, having set itself a total target of $70m to pay for the bonanza. It promises that “for corporate donors, the sponsorship opportunities can be incredibly valuable”. It lists a range of inducements at the RNC which will showcase Trump’s re-election bid in Charlotte, North Carolina, between 24 and 27 August.
Not only will companies have the chance to project their brands in front of up to 50,000 participants at the convention, including 15,000 members of the global media, but they can also customise packages to their corporate needs “to ensure your convention experience is both enjoyable and beneficial”.
Top-tier sponsors, making a tax-deductible donation of $1m or more, will get VIP access at the convention as well as seats at an “exclusive campaign briefing with 2020 campaign leadership”.
The Democratic National Convention, where the party’s presidential candidate will be nominated, will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from 13 to 16 July. Its host committee has also set itself a target of $70m, though that would be further supplemented by $20m from the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC).
Fundraising brochures put out by the host organisation Milwaukee 2020 similarly sets out a tiered approach with the top level lauded as “gold” donors contributing at least $1m each. For that largesse they are promised select advertising opportunities, VIP access and hospitality and tickets to host committee parties.
Unlike the Republicans, the DNC hosts are not dangling access to top presidential campaign figures in front of donors. However, the presence of so much corporate cash swilling around Milwaukee could yet be problematic, given the platforms of some of the party’s primary contenders.
That is especially the case for Sanders. In October his campaign told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that were he to become the nominee he would ban corporate donations to the convention in tune with his general desire to remove big money from US politics.
Josh Orton, policy director in the Sanders campaign, told the newspaper: “When Bernie is the nominee, everything will fundamentally change for corporate elites … A Bernie Sanders convention will be a people-powered convention.”
That would appear to conflict with the message being handed out by DNCC officials who have been telling potential donors and lobbyists that their money would be welcomed no matter who the eventual nominee is. As Politico has reported, the DNCC’s chief executive, Joe Solmonese, has taken the view that the event needs to be funded well in advance, with the use of corporate dollars, no matter who is victorious in the Democratic primaries.
“We can’t know and try to, nor can I ever suggest that we ever try to, bend this towards any one candidate’s philosophy,” Solmonese told the news site.
Though the Democrats have a more progressive stance on big money in politics than the modern Republican party, they are by no means immune to the stresses and contradictions that come from welcoming large amounts of corporate cash into their coffers.
The Open Secrets database that tracks money in US politics calculated that almost three-quarters of the $70m raised for the Philadelphia Democratic National Convention that nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016 was raised from just 17 sources.
Among those mega-donors were Facebook, the telecoms company AT&T and health insurer Independence Blue Cross which all gave $1.5m each, and American Airlines and Bank of America donating $1m each. JB Pritzker, the current Democratic governor of Illinois whose fortune comes from the Pritzker family’s ownership of the Hyatt hotel chain, gave a personal donation of $1.3m.
Organizers of both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions are going after major corporate donors appealing for huge lump sums as they scramble to raise the money needed to bankroll the made-for-television events.
Fundraising materials show that both parties are hoping to lure $1m donations from corporations and wealthy individuals in exchange for access and advertising opportunities.
The big bucks sponsorship packages raise potentially sticky questions for both parties. The Republicans are effectively offering exclusive briefings with the leaders of the Trump re-election campaign in return for cash.
The Democrats may face difficult ethical issues were either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to win the nomination. Both have shunned big money donations in the early stages of the election and Sanders has indicated he might try to do the same for the Democratic convention were he to become his party’s nominee.
The scale of the parties’ ambitions is disclosed in marketing materials provided to the Guardian by Documented, a watchdog group that investigates how corporations manipulate public policy.
The host committee for the Republican National Convention pitches its offering in the most enticing language, having set itself a total target of $70m to pay for the bonanza. It promises that “for corporate donors, the sponsorship opportunities can be incredibly valuable”. It lists a range of inducements at the RNC which will showcase Trump’s re-election bid in Charlotte, North Carolina, between 24 and 27 August.
Not only will companies have the chance to project their brands in front of up to 50,000 participants at the convention, including 15,000 members of the global media, but they can also customise packages to their corporate needs “to ensure your convention experience is both enjoyable and beneficial”.
Top-tier sponsors, making a tax-deductible donation of $1m or more, will get VIP access at the convention as well as seats at an “exclusive campaign briefing with 2020 campaign leadership”.
The Democratic National Convention, where the party’s presidential candidate will be nominated, will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from 13 to 16 July. Its host committee has also set itself a target of $70m, though that would be further supplemented by $20m from the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC).
Fundraising brochures put out by the host organisation Milwaukee 2020 similarly sets out a tiered approach with the top level lauded as “gold” donors contributing at least $1m each. For that largesse they are promised select advertising opportunities, VIP access and hospitality and tickets to host committee parties.
Unlike the Republicans, the DNC hosts are not dangling access to top presidential campaign figures in front of donors. However, the presence of so much corporate cash swilling around Milwaukee could yet be problematic, given the platforms of some of the party’s primary contenders.
That is especially the case for Sanders. In October his campaign told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that were he to become the nominee he would ban corporate donations to the convention in tune with his general desire to remove big money from US politics.
Josh Orton, policy director in the Sanders campaign, told the newspaper: “When Bernie is the nominee, everything will fundamentally change for corporate elites … A Bernie Sanders convention will be a people-powered convention.”
That would appear to conflict with the message being handed out by DNCC officials who have been telling potential donors and lobbyists that their money would be welcomed no matter who the eventual nominee is. As Politico has reported, the DNCC’s chief executive, Joe Solmonese, has taken the view that the event needs to be funded well in advance, with the use of corporate dollars, no matter who is victorious in the Democratic primaries.
“We can’t know and try to, nor can I ever suggest that we ever try to, bend this towards any one candidate’s philosophy,” Solmonese told the news site.
Though the Democrats have a more progressive stance on big money in politics than the modern Republican party, they are by no means immune to the stresses and contradictions that come from welcoming large amounts of corporate cash into their coffers.
The Open Secrets database that tracks money in US politics calculated that almost three-quarters of the $70m raised for the Philadelphia Democratic National Convention that nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016 was raised from just 17 sources.
Among those mega-donors were Facebook, the telecoms company AT&T and health insurer Independence Blue Cross which all gave $1.5m each, and American Airlines and Bank of America donating $1m each. JB Pritzker, the current Democratic governor of Illinois whose fortune comes from the Pritzker family’s ownership of the Hyatt hotel chain, gave a personal donation of $1.3m.
Ralph Nader breaks down how Democrats caved in secret budget deal with Trump:
‘What a grotesque way to spend taxpayer money!’
Elizabeth Preza - ALTERNET
December 22, 2019
While attention was focused on the House of Representatives’ impeachment of Donald J. Trump, legislators from both parties were secretly huddling with White House aides to seal a $1.4 trillion budget deal to fund the government until next September. They were rushing to do this to avoid a partial government shutdown starting December 21, 2019.
Had the budget been deliberated in open Congressional hearings, the media would have reported on this backroom deal and the people of this country would have had a chance to weigh in during the proceedings. Instead, a degraded Congress pulled a fast one on the citizens. This obfuscation is especially unacceptable considering that these lawmakers work only three days a week at best— when they are not in recess altogether.
Astoundingly the Democrats also caved in on Trump’s wall! After blocking Trump’s funding demand for the wall for three years, the Democrats approved $1.4 billion for the wall and even allowed Trump to divert funds from the Pentagon to that porous, wasteful barrier. In so doing, the Democrats legitimized one of the egregious, impeachable offenses Trump committed earlier this year when he seized $3.6 billion from the Pentagon’s budget in money not approved for the wall. The Washington Post reported that former secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus tweeted “As hurricane heads for Camp Lejeune Trump takes $3.6b from military for needless wall. Same amt Marines say needed to fix Lejeune after last storm.”
Trump usurped the Congressional “power of the purse,” to use James Madison’s phrase, under our Constitution. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi declined to charge Trump with this and other similarly impeachable spending violations. Now we know one reason why—the ongoing secret budget deal.
Just as astonishing was that the Democrats caved on the funding for Obamacare. Year after year, Democratic leaders defended Obamacare, rather than support more efficient full Medicare for All (with free choice of doctor and hospital). See H.R. 1384 for the most recent version of Medicare for All.
With the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just deciding against the individual mandate in Obamacare, what does the House Democratic leadership do? They go along with the Republicans’ demand to repeal the medical device and health insurance taxes that were helping to fund Obamacare’s expansion of health insurance coverage for twenty million people.
It gets worse. The House Democrats approved a huge increase of $22 billion to the already bloated, wasteful military budget in return for Trump approving paid family leave for federal government employees. The Democrats made this deal instead of just pushing for paid maternity leave, a right provided in all other Western democracies and numerous dictatorships in the world!
“No problem,” say the feeble Democrats. It is just more of the terrible practice by the Democrats of giving equal increases for the military budget, demanded by the Republican illegal war hawks, as the price for social service funds for low income families and children. What a grotesque way to spend taxpayer money!
To what level has this Congress lowered itself? Allowing the Trump dump to contaminate Congress even extends to cruel bigotry. They allowed Trump to extend his racist discrimination against the American citizens of Puerto Rico by reducing the Medicaid funds from $12 billion over four years to up to $5.7 billion over two years. The higher sum and longer term already were endorsed by Republican and Democratic leaders on two Congressional Committees.
Robert Greenstein, director of the highly respected Center on Budget and policy priorities, declared that “with another funding cliff looming in two years under the new agreement, Puerto Rico may continue to lack the certainty it needs to commit to long-term increases of its very low payment rates to health care providers [vendors] to stem their alarming exodus to the mainland, to provide coverage for such key health treatments as drugs to treat Hepatitis C, and to cover more poor, uninsured residents.”
Over the years, Congress has weakened its exclusive constitutional “power of the purse” by giving presidents waivers. As with the war powers, Congress has delegated more of its constitutional authority to the Executive Branch.
Just days ago, the racist President Trump bragged before a large campaign rally that he has cut off “six hundred million dollars” in aid for Palestinian relief, including aid for suffering children. This was a long term assistance program, under past Republican and Democratic administrations, to help provide the barest necessities to displaced and impoverished Palestinians whose territories are blockaded or militarily occupied by the Israeli government.
Washington justified such expenditures for both humanitarian and security purposes. No more, says the imperial Trump, exercising his Congressionally-granted waiver.
Congress has also long abandoned its constitutional authority over tariffs to the imperial presidency. Constitutional litigator Alan Morrison has challenged the White House’s unilateral imposition of tariffs—now involving tens of billions of dollars—on imports from foreign countries. In January Morrison will argue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the authority to impose tariffs belongs to Congress.
What is Trump doing with these tens of billions of dollars deposited in the U.S. Treasury? Congress has not approved spending them for any programs or objectives. When I asked a staffer with the House Budget Committee what is being done with loads of money, she replied that “we have it under study.”
Secret government has its direct consequences for the American people, and abdication of congressional checks on the Executive Branch is harmful and cowardly.
Had the budget been deliberated in open Congressional hearings, the media would have reported on this backroom deal and the people of this country would have had a chance to weigh in during the proceedings. Instead, a degraded Congress pulled a fast one on the citizens. This obfuscation is especially unacceptable considering that these lawmakers work only three days a week at best— when they are not in recess altogether.
Astoundingly the Democrats also caved in on Trump’s wall! After blocking Trump’s funding demand for the wall for three years, the Democrats approved $1.4 billion for the wall and even allowed Trump to divert funds from the Pentagon to that porous, wasteful barrier. In so doing, the Democrats legitimized one of the egregious, impeachable offenses Trump committed earlier this year when he seized $3.6 billion from the Pentagon’s budget in money not approved for the wall. The Washington Post reported that former secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus tweeted “As hurricane heads for Camp Lejeune Trump takes $3.6b from military for needless wall. Same amt Marines say needed to fix Lejeune after last storm.”
Trump usurped the Congressional “power of the purse,” to use James Madison’s phrase, under our Constitution. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi declined to charge Trump with this and other similarly impeachable spending violations. Now we know one reason why—the ongoing secret budget deal.
Just as astonishing was that the Democrats caved on the funding for Obamacare. Year after year, Democratic leaders defended Obamacare, rather than support more efficient full Medicare for All (with free choice of doctor and hospital). See H.R. 1384 for the most recent version of Medicare for All.
With the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just deciding against the individual mandate in Obamacare, what does the House Democratic leadership do? They go along with the Republicans’ demand to repeal the medical device and health insurance taxes that were helping to fund Obamacare’s expansion of health insurance coverage for twenty million people.
It gets worse. The House Democrats approved a huge increase of $22 billion to the already bloated, wasteful military budget in return for Trump approving paid family leave for federal government employees. The Democrats made this deal instead of just pushing for paid maternity leave, a right provided in all other Western democracies and numerous dictatorships in the world!
“No problem,” say the feeble Democrats. It is just more of the terrible practice by the Democrats of giving equal increases for the military budget, demanded by the Republican illegal war hawks, as the price for social service funds for low income families and children. What a grotesque way to spend taxpayer money!
To what level has this Congress lowered itself? Allowing the Trump dump to contaminate Congress even extends to cruel bigotry. They allowed Trump to extend his racist discrimination against the American citizens of Puerto Rico by reducing the Medicaid funds from $12 billion over four years to up to $5.7 billion over two years. The higher sum and longer term already were endorsed by Republican and Democratic leaders on two Congressional Committees.
Robert Greenstein, director of the highly respected Center on Budget and policy priorities, declared that “with another funding cliff looming in two years under the new agreement, Puerto Rico may continue to lack the certainty it needs to commit to long-term increases of its very low payment rates to health care providers [vendors] to stem their alarming exodus to the mainland, to provide coverage for such key health treatments as drugs to treat Hepatitis C, and to cover more poor, uninsured residents.”
Over the years, Congress has weakened its exclusive constitutional “power of the purse” by giving presidents waivers. As with the war powers, Congress has delegated more of its constitutional authority to the Executive Branch.
Just days ago, the racist President Trump bragged before a large campaign rally that he has cut off “six hundred million dollars” in aid for Palestinian relief, including aid for suffering children. This was a long term assistance program, under past Republican and Democratic administrations, to help provide the barest necessities to displaced and impoverished Palestinians whose territories are blockaded or militarily occupied by the Israeli government.
Washington justified such expenditures for both humanitarian and security purposes. No more, says the imperial Trump, exercising his Congressionally-granted waiver.
Congress has also long abandoned its constitutional authority over tariffs to the imperial presidency. Constitutional litigator Alan Morrison has challenged the White House’s unilateral imposition of tariffs—now involving tens of billions of dollars—on imports from foreign countries. In January Morrison will argue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the authority to impose tariffs belongs to Congress.
What is Trump doing with these tens of billions of dollars deposited in the U.S. Treasury? Congress has not approved spending them for any programs or objectives. When I asked a staffer with the House Budget Committee what is being done with loads of money, she replied that “we have it under study.”
Secret government has its direct consequences for the American people, and abdication of congressional checks on the Executive Branch is harmful and cowardly.
GABBARD VOTES "PRESENT" ON IMPEACHMENT
“That’s just stupid”: Tulsi Gabbard baffles Democrats after she votes “present” on Trump impeachment
"We were sent here to lead," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said as she questioned why Gabbard didn't "take a stand"
IGOR DERYSH - salon
DECEMBER 19, 2019 2:55PM (UTC)
Dep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, came under fire from her Democratic colleagues after casting the lone “present” vote on both articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.
The House voted 230-197-1 to impeach Trump for abuse of power and 229-198-1 to impeach Trump for obstruction of Congress. Gabbard, who is currently seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for the White House, cast the lone “present” vote on both articles.
Two Democrats voted against the abuse of power charge, while three voted against the obstruction of Congress charge. No Republicans broke party ranks, though former Republican Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, who is now an independent, voted with Democrats.
Gabbard, who has repeatedly expressed reluctance of the impeachment process, instead advocated for Trump’s censure. She skipped the House procedural votes in the morning and did not appear in the chamber until the end of the vote on the first article of impeachment.
“Tulsi Gabbard, who was mysteriously missing all day, is in the chamber and has voted 'present,'" MSNBC anchor Brian Williams reported during the network’s coverage of the vote.
“That’s just stupid,” former Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said. “I mean, what is the point? I don’t know what this woman thinks she’s accomplishing by that. I guess getting attention. We’re talking about her, and really we shouldn’t spend any time talking about her.”
Gabbard said in a statement after reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, “I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either, 'yes' or 'no.'”
“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote 'present,'” she said. “I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment, because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment, because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”
Gabbard reiterated her call for a vote on her censure resolution.
“Trump has violated public trust. Congress must be unequivocal in denouncing the president’s misconduct and stand up for the American people and our democracy," she said. "To this end, I have introduced a censure resolution that will send a strong message to this president.”
She added that her 'present' vote was a “vote for much needed reconciliation and hope that together we can heal our country.”
MSNBC reporter Garrett Haake pointed out that the statement was released by her presidential campaign — not her House office — “which tells you quite a bit.”
“Not sure how [Gabbard] can defend a ‘present’ vote on impeachment,” he tweeted. “One of the most consequential votes in any politician’s career and you can’t make a call one way or another? Why even be there, collecting a taxpayer-funded paycheck?”
Gabbard’s House colleagues were also not impressed with her decision.
“Today was very consequential, and to not take a stand one way or another on a day of such great consequence to this country, I think is quite difficult. We are sent here to lead,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told BuzzFeed News after the vote. “Whenever we have a vote, we should vote ‘yes,’ and we should vote ‘no.’ Voting ‘present’ is a very tough position to be in. To not take a stand in a moment that is so consequential — I think it’s quite difficult.”
Gabbard countered criticism in a video posted to social media.
“I’ve always worked to do what is in the best interest of our country — not what’s best for me politically, not what’s best for my political party,” she said. “One may not always agree with my decisions, but everyone should know that I will always do what I believe to be right for the country that I love.”
Gabbard has long been a source of consternation among Democrats. She came under fire after traveling to Syria in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, who has been accused of multiple war crimes. She has frequently appeared on Fox News, where she often criticized former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in addition to impeachment.
ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd called the 'present' vote “about the worst decision you can make in this important moment in history.”
He added, “How does she run in the Democratic primary after this?”
Others could not help but notice the pointed look on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s face after she read the lone 'present' vote.
The House voted 230-197-1 to impeach Trump for abuse of power and 229-198-1 to impeach Trump for obstruction of Congress. Gabbard, who is currently seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for the White House, cast the lone “present” vote on both articles.
Two Democrats voted against the abuse of power charge, while three voted against the obstruction of Congress charge. No Republicans broke party ranks, though former Republican Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, who is now an independent, voted with Democrats.
Gabbard, who has repeatedly expressed reluctance of the impeachment process, instead advocated for Trump’s censure. She skipped the House procedural votes in the morning and did not appear in the chamber until the end of the vote on the first article of impeachment.
“Tulsi Gabbard, who was mysteriously missing all day, is in the chamber and has voted 'present,'" MSNBC anchor Brian Williams reported during the network’s coverage of the vote.
“That’s just stupid,” former Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said. “I mean, what is the point? I don’t know what this woman thinks she’s accomplishing by that. I guess getting attention. We’re talking about her, and really we shouldn’t spend any time talking about her.”
Gabbard said in a statement after reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, “I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either, 'yes' or 'no.'”
“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote 'present,'” she said. “I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment, because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment, because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”
Gabbard reiterated her call for a vote on her censure resolution.
“Trump has violated public trust. Congress must be unequivocal in denouncing the president’s misconduct and stand up for the American people and our democracy," she said. "To this end, I have introduced a censure resolution that will send a strong message to this president.”
She added that her 'present' vote was a “vote for much needed reconciliation and hope that together we can heal our country.”
MSNBC reporter Garrett Haake pointed out that the statement was released by her presidential campaign — not her House office — “which tells you quite a bit.”
“Not sure how [Gabbard] can defend a ‘present’ vote on impeachment,” he tweeted. “One of the most consequential votes in any politician’s career and you can’t make a call one way or another? Why even be there, collecting a taxpayer-funded paycheck?”
Gabbard’s House colleagues were also not impressed with her decision.
“Today was very consequential, and to not take a stand one way or another on a day of such great consequence to this country, I think is quite difficult. We are sent here to lead,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told BuzzFeed News after the vote. “Whenever we have a vote, we should vote ‘yes,’ and we should vote ‘no.’ Voting ‘present’ is a very tough position to be in. To not take a stand in a moment that is so consequential — I think it’s quite difficult.”
Gabbard countered criticism in a video posted to social media.
“I’ve always worked to do what is in the best interest of our country — not what’s best for me politically, not what’s best for my political party,” she said. “One may not always agree with my decisions, but everyone should know that I will always do what I believe to be right for the country that I love.”
Gabbard has long been a source of consternation among Democrats. She came under fire after traveling to Syria in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, who has been accused of multiple war crimes. She has frequently appeared on Fox News, where she often criticized former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in addition to impeachment.
ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd called the 'present' vote “about the worst decision you can make in this important moment in history.”
He added, “How does she run in the Democratic primary after this?”
Others could not help but notice the pointed look on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s face after she read the lone 'present' vote.
Top Dem accused of putting private equity before sick and poor by killing effort to end ‘devastating’ surprise medical bills
December 17, 2019
By Jake Johnson, Common Dreams - raw story
One critic said Rep. Richard Neal, the Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is “actively helping private equity-owned doctor groups rip off and destroy the lives of people at their most vulnerable.”
Rep. Richard Neal, Democratic chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, teamed up with a Republican ally last week to effectively torpedo bipartisan legislation that aimed to curb surprise medical bills—a major source of financial pain for people who experience medical emergencies and other serious ailments.
Last Sunday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Health Committee announced a bipartisan agreement on legislation to shield the U.S. public from the “devastating financial toll of surprise medical bills.”
The chairmen of the two committees, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), expressed hope that the legislation would be included in the must-pass spending legislation Congress is expected to approve by Friday.
“Every day that goes by is another loss for America’s families and another win for private equity.”
—Shawn Gremminger, Families USA
But Neal, who has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from a private equity group opposed to the Pallone-Alexander measure, had other plans.
Three days after Pallone and Alexander announced their agreement, Neal and Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), the top Republican on Ways and Means, countered with a more industry-friendly plan that would place billing decisions in the hands of a third-party arbiter, an idea favored by powerful hospital and doctor groups.
The Hill reported last Friday that surprise billing legislation will not be in the year-end spending measure, which does include big tax breaks for the healthcare industry.
“With the key committees in the House pushing competing ideas, leadership is waiting until next year” to act on surprise medical billing, The Hill noted.
Neal and Brady’s announcement of competing legislation sparked outrage among members of Congress and outside progressives who said delaying action on surprise billing until 2020 could kill any hopes of a solution.
“Every day that goes by is another loss for America’s families and another win for private equity,” said Shawn Gremminger, senior director of federal affairs for consumer group Families USA. “The primary committees of jurisdiction have been negotiating a deal for months and now there is a bipartisan, bicameral bill on the table that has the support of the White House and can pass by Dec. 20.”
Families USA✔
@FamiliesUSA
Delaying a bill is a win for private equity and a loss for patients. @RepRichardNeal, why won't you support the strong bipartisan deal agreed to by House and Senate leaders that's on the table! #SurpriseMedicalBill
12:18 PM - Dec 12, 2019
Freelance journalist Jon Walker said that by thwarting the effort to curb surprise medical billing before the end of the year, Neal is “actively helping private equity-owned doctor groups rip off and destroy the lives of people at their most vulnerable.”
“Let’s be clear about what is happening,” Walker tweeted. “Democrats pretend they want to improve healthcare and when they have a chance they take the side of wealthy for-profit companies with the most ghoulish business practices imaginable.”
“At the eleventh hour, turf wars in the House and corporate special interests appear to be standing in the way of passing these vital protections for patients into law.”
—Spokeswoman for Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)
Surprise medical bills often come after a patient receives treatment from a doctor or hospital outside the network covered by their insurance plan.
Under the Pallone-Alexander agreement, the New York Times reported, “doctors who provide care that is out-of-network for a patient’s insurance [would] automatically be paid the median price of in-network doctors in the area” instead of the exorbitant prices under the status quo.
Hospital and doctor groups backed by private equity have spent millions of dollars lobbying against congressional action to tackle surprise medical billing, worrying that legislation could cut into their profits.
Blackstone Group, a private equity firm that owns the physician staffing organization TeamHealth, donated $29,000 to Neal’s 2020 reelection campaign this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), who worked on the Senate Health Committee proposal, told The Hill that it is “extremely disappointing that now, at the eleventh hour, turf wars in the House and corporate special interests appear to be standing in the way of passing these vital protections for patients into law.”
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) expressed similar disappointment. “You wonder who made the call to stop our bill, but clearly the best interest of the patient is not at heart,” Walden told The Hill.
Others said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) shares a portion of the blame for failing to overrule Neal.
“Nancy Pelosi allowing Rep. Neal to kill surprise billing protection to pay back his big [private equity] donors is the most disgusting story in D.C. right now,” said Walker.
Rep. Richard Neal, Democratic chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, teamed up with a Republican ally last week to effectively torpedo bipartisan legislation that aimed to curb surprise medical bills—a major source of financial pain for people who experience medical emergencies and other serious ailments.
Last Sunday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Health Committee announced a bipartisan agreement on legislation to shield the U.S. public from the “devastating financial toll of surprise medical bills.”
The chairmen of the two committees, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), expressed hope that the legislation would be included in the must-pass spending legislation Congress is expected to approve by Friday.
“Every day that goes by is another loss for America’s families and another win for private equity.”
—Shawn Gremminger, Families USA
But Neal, who has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from a private equity group opposed to the Pallone-Alexander measure, had other plans.
Three days after Pallone and Alexander announced their agreement, Neal and Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), the top Republican on Ways and Means, countered with a more industry-friendly plan that would place billing decisions in the hands of a third-party arbiter, an idea favored by powerful hospital and doctor groups.
The Hill reported last Friday that surprise billing legislation will not be in the year-end spending measure, which does include big tax breaks for the healthcare industry.
“With the key committees in the House pushing competing ideas, leadership is waiting until next year” to act on surprise medical billing, The Hill noted.
Neal and Brady’s announcement of competing legislation sparked outrage among members of Congress and outside progressives who said delaying action on surprise billing until 2020 could kill any hopes of a solution.
“Every day that goes by is another loss for America’s families and another win for private equity,” said Shawn Gremminger, senior director of federal affairs for consumer group Families USA. “The primary committees of jurisdiction have been negotiating a deal for months and now there is a bipartisan, bicameral bill on the table that has the support of the White House and can pass by Dec. 20.”
Families USA✔
@FamiliesUSA
Delaying a bill is a win for private equity and a loss for patients. @RepRichardNeal, why won't you support the strong bipartisan deal agreed to by House and Senate leaders that's on the table! #SurpriseMedicalBill
12:18 PM - Dec 12, 2019
Freelance journalist Jon Walker said that by thwarting the effort to curb surprise medical billing before the end of the year, Neal is “actively helping private equity-owned doctor groups rip off and destroy the lives of people at their most vulnerable.”
“Let’s be clear about what is happening,” Walker tweeted. “Democrats pretend they want to improve healthcare and when they have a chance they take the side of wealthy for-profit companies with the most ghoulish business practices imaginable.”
“At the eleventh hour, turf wars in the House and corporate special interests appear to be standing in the way of passing these vital protections for patients into law.”
—Spokeswoman for Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)
Surprise medical bills often come after a patient receives treatment from a doctor or hospital outside the network covered by their insurance plan.
Under the Pallone-Alexander agreement, the New York Times reported, “doctors who provide care that is out-of-network for a patient’s insurance [would] automatically be paid the median price of in-network doctors in the area” instead of the exorbitant prices under the status quo.
Hospital and doctor groups backed by private equity have spent millions of dollars lobbying against congressional action to tackle surprise medical billing, worrying that legislation could cut into their profits.
Blackstone Group, a private equity firm that owns the physician staffing organization TeamHealth, donated $29,000 to Neal’s 2020 reelection campaign this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), who worked on the Senate Health Committee proposal, told The Hill that it is “extremely disappointing that now, at the eleventh hour, turf wars in the House and corporate special interests appear to be standing in the way of passing these vital protections for patients into law.”
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) expressed similar disappointment. “You wonder who made the call to stop our bill, but clearly the best interest of the patient is not at heart,” Walden told The Hill.
Others said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) shares a portion of the blame for failing to overrule Neal.
“Nancy Pelosi allowing Rep. Neal to kill surprise billing protection to pay back his big [private equity] donors is the most disgusting story in D.C. right now,” said Walker.
Wall Street banks court moderate Democrats to blunt Warren's hostility
Pete Schroeder - reuters
12/16/19
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wall Street bank lobbyists are seeking moderate Democratic allies in Congress to deprive Elizabeth Warren of votes and curb policies they consider hostile to their interests, according to more than a dozen lobbyists, consultants and campaign data.
A leading Democratic 2020 presidential hopeful and fiery progressive, Warren has built her profile by attacking lenders like Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N), Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) and Citigroup Inc (C.N).
Banks worry that even if the Massachusetts senator does not become the next U.S. president, she would wield major influence on financial policy in any Democratic administration.
“While a hostile White House could pose challenges, the banking industry is working to mitigate those challenges by using its considerable clout in Congress,” said Cam Fine, chief executive of advocacy consultancy Calvert Advisors and a longtime bank lobbyist.
On the campaign trail, Warren has proposed measures damaging for Wall Street, including breaking up big banks, taxing financial transactions, and reviving capital and liquidity rules weakened by the Trump administration.
She has also rejected corporate money, closing off a traditional avenue for influencing presidential candidates.
Lobbyists believe they can rely on Congressional Republicans to oppose Warren’s agenda, but they need to sway moderate Democrats to block any drastic legislation, especially in the Senate where most bills require 60% of the vote to pass.
Thirty-five Senate seats are up for re-election in 2020 and the winning party is expected to wield only a slim majority.
Banks are targeting Democrats on the U.S. Senate banking committee who need war chests for re-election bids, including Virginia’s Mark Warner and Alabama’s Doug Jones, as well as other senators with bipartisan track records such as Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema and Michigan’s Gary Peters, lobbyists said.
Some Democrats, including Peters, have received more cash from banks this cycle than leading Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
“Elizabeth has a proven record of getting things done, even in the face of intense lobbying from corporate interests,” said a spokeswoman for Warren.
Warner declined to comment. Jones and Sinema did not respond to requests for comment.
A spokeswoman for Peters said he had helped lead efforts to hold Wall Street accountable and protect consumers, and would “continue to focus on doing what’s best for Michigan families, Main Street community banks and credit unions.”Of the $5.8 million that banks and their lobby groups have given to lawmakers’ campaigns so far this election cycle, 33% has gone to Democrats, the highest portion since 2010, the data shows.
“You can’t get lasting legislation done in this city without it being bipartisan,” said Tom Quaadman, an executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which this year said it would better reward lawmakers who focus on bipartisanship.
“That’s why we are making sure we have strong ties with both parties.”
The American Bankers Association, the biggest bank group donor which has dished out $1.5 million so far this cycle, also plans to fund campaign ads in support of moderate Republicans and Democrats in tight races, the sources said.
An ABA spokesman declined to comment.
ECONOMIC ROLE
Media savvy and a consumer finance expert, Warren has proved adept at wrongfooting big banks, shining a spotlight on their missteps and slamming regulators she says are too industry-friendly. Beyond blocking legislation, banks need advocates who will rebut Warren’s rhetoric, shield regulators from White House pressure to crackdown on them, and moderate the tone in Washington, the sources said.
Lobbyists are also courting lawmakers on the U.S. House of Representatives’ finance panel, such as Ohio’s Joyce Beatty, and those from districts with a significant financial footprint, including New York’s Gregory Meeks, Georgia’s David Scott and Connecticut’s Jim Himes.
The Financial Services Forum representing the eight largest U.S. banks has decided to give directly to lawmakers for the first time. In meetings, it has used data on bank lending and employment to emphasize the large role banks play in lawmakers’ constituencies and the broader economy, its CEO Kevin Fromer said in an interview.
The message is resonating with some lawmakers.
“To say ... banks are the evil people of the world would go against the interests of the communities I represent,” Meeks told Reuters.
He said he wants banks to operate fairly, but that Warren’s proposals to curtail the industry could reduce banking services in minority communities like those he represents in New York’s Queens borough. “We talk because I’d like banks to also invest in communities like mine,” he added.
Beatty, Scott and Himes did not respond to requests for comment.
Warren has argued that lax bank regulation can harm minorities, while vigorously defending rules that guard against discriminatory and predatory lending.
“This campaign is about building a grassroots movement of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to hold Wall Street accountable and to produce an economy that works for everyone,” said Warren’s spokeswoman.
Wall Street has struggled since the 2007-2009 global financial crisis to rehabilitate its image in Washington and rebuild the Democratic support it once enjoyed. Some lobbyists are skeptical they will gain much ground. Many, though, said they have been encouraged by signs of a thaw after the industry in 2018 persuaded a group of moderate Democrats to back a rewrite of post-crisis rules, despite intense criticism from Warren.
“The industry is much more attuned to the political cycle this go-around,” said one consultant.
A leading Democratic 2020 presidential hopeful and fiery progressive, Warren has built her profile by attacking lenders like Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N), Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) and Citigroup Inc (C.N).
Banks worry that even if the Massachusetts senator does not become the next U.S. president, she would wield major influence on financial policy in any Democratic administration.
“While a hostile White House could pose challenges, the banking industry is working to mitigate those challenges by using its considerable clout in Congress,” said Cam Fine, chief executive of advocacy consultancy Calvert Advisors and a longtime bank lobbyist.
On the campaign trail, Warren has proposed measures damaging for Wall Street, including breaking up big banks, taxing financial transactions, and reviving capital and liquidity rules weakened by the Trump administration.
She has also rejected corporate money, closing off a traditional avenue for influencing presidential candidates.
Lobbyists believe they can rely on Congressional Republicans to oppose Warren’s agenda, but they need to sway moderate Democrats to block any drastic legislation, especially in the Senate where most bills require 60% of the vote to pass.
Thirty-five Senate seats are up for re-election in 2020 and the winning party is expected to wield only a slim majority.
Banks are targeting Democrats on the U.S. Senate banking committee who need war chests for re-election bids, including Virginia’s Mark Warner and Alabama’s Doug Jones, as well as other senators with bipartisan track records such as Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema and Michigan’s Gary Peters, lobbyists said.
Some Democrats, including Peters, have received more cash from banks this cycle than leading Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
“Elizabeth has a proven record of getting things done, even in the face of intense lobbying from corporate interests,” said a spokeswoman for Warren.
Warner declined to comment. Jones and Sinema did not respond to requests for comment.
A spokeswoman for Peters said he had helped lead efforts to hold Wall Street accountable and protect consumers, and would “continue to focus on doing what’s best for Michigan families, Main Street community banks and credit unions.”Of the $5.8 million that banks and their lobby groups have given to lawmakers’ campaigns so far this election cycle, 33% has gone to Democrats, the highest portion since 2010, the data shows.
“You can’t get lasting legislation done in this city without it being bipartisan,” said Tom Quaadman, an executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which this year said it would better reward lawmakers who focus on bipartisanship.
“That’s why we are making sure we have strong ties with both parties.”
The American Bankers Association, the biggest bank group donor which has dished out $1.5 million so far this cycle, also plans to fund campaign ads in support of moderate Republicans and Democrats in tight races, the sources said.
An ABA spokesman declined to comment.
ECONOMIC ROLE
Media savvy and a consumer finance expert, Warren has proved adept at wrongfooting big banks, shining a spotlight on their missteps and slamming regulators she says are too industry-friendly. Beyond blocking legislation, banks need advocates who will rebut Warren’s rhetoric, shield regulators from White House pressure to crackdown on them, and moderate the tone in Washington, the sources said.
Lobbyists are also courting lawmakers on the U.S. House of Representatives’ finance panel, such as Ohio’s Joyce Beatty, and those from districts with a significant financial footprint, including New York’s Gregory Meeks, Georgia’s David Scott and Connecticut’s Jim Himes.
The Financial Services Forum representing the eight largest U.S. banks has decided to give directly to lawmakers for the first time. In meetings, it has used data on bank lending and employment to emphasize the large role banks play in lawmakers’ constituencies and the broader economy, its CEO Kevin Fromer said in an interview.
The message is resonating with some lawmakers.
“To say ... banks are the evil people of the world would go against the interests of the communities I represent,” Meeks told Reuters.
He said he wants banks to operate fairly, but that Warren’s proposals to curtail the industry could reduce banking services in minority communities like those he represents in New York’s Queens borough. “We talk because I’d like banks to also invest in communities like mine,” he added.
Beatty, Scott and Himes did not respond to requests for comment.
Warren has argued that lax bank regulation can harm minorities, while vigorously defending rules that guard against discriminatory and predatory lending.
“This campaign is about building a grassroots movement of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to hold Wall Street accountable and to produce an economy that works for everyone,” said Warren’s spokeswoman.
Wall Street has struggled since the 2007-2009 global financial crisis to rehabilitate its image in Washington and rebuild the Democratic support it once enjoyed. Some lobbyists are skeptical they will gain much ground. Many, though, said they have been encouraged by signs of a thaw after the industry in 2018 persuaded a group of moderate Democrats to back a rewrite of post-crisis rules, despite intense criticism from Warren.
“The industry is much more attuned to the political cycle this go-around,” said one consultant.
TRUMP-FRIENDLY CALIFORNIA DEMOCRAT IS FACING HIS FIRST SERIOUS PRIMARY CHALLENGER
Aída Chávez - the intercept
December 15 2019, 4:00 a.m.
IN 2004, California Rep. Jim Costa won his seat in the 20th Congressional District following a contentious primary battle against Lisa Quigley. Though the experienced Quigley had the backing of EMILY’s List and the endorsement of the retiring representative, Calvin Dooley, who was also her boss, the party establishment had largely rallied behind Costa.
“She’s a politician,” Costa, a former state senator, told the Los Angeles Times. “Now she’s trying to become an elected politician.” Costa had worked in the state legislature for over 20 years. He wrote and introduced the legislative version of what would later become the state’s notorious “three-strikes” law, aimed at imposing harsher sentences for crimes. Quigley was a 38-year-old Capitol Hill staffer and mother.
Late in the race, when the candidates were neck-and-neck in fundraising, the real estate industry dumped more than $270,000 in radio and TV ads for Costa. As a state senator, Costa had led the effort to ban most kinds of rent control in California. The disastrous 1995 law, known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, strictly limits the rent control policies cities and countries can impose, incentivizes evictions, and is widely blamed for contributing to California’s affordable housing crisis. “We’re certainly doing our best to see Senator Costa wins,” the vice president of the National Association of Realtors, Steve Cook, said at the time.
Now, 14 years later, Costa has proven to be one of the most conservative Democrats in the House. In January 2017, he became a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition, which partnered with the party’s campaign arm to recruit and push congressional candidates to the right heading into the midterm elections, despite representing a reliably blue district. Since 2016, he has voted along with President Donald Trump’s agenda nearly half the time, according to one estimate of the 115th Congress.
He’s one of just a handful of Democrats who have joined Republicans in voting to erode environmental regulations, defend U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and stall action on Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. While most House Democrats were working on articles of impeachment, Axios reported, Costa was one of six who decided to attend Trump’s White House congressional holiday ball. (Costa’s campaign did not return a request for comment.)
Next year, Costa will face the first serious primary challenge of his congressional career. Fresno City Councilmember Esmeralda Soria, a daughter of Mexican immigrant farmworkers, is aiming to unseat the eight-term incumbent. Costa has only ever had to fend off Republican opponents, and in 2014, almost lost his safe seat to an obscure, underfunded GOP challenger.
Soria hopes to capitalize on recent pushback to Costa’s policies. Though a ballot measure to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Act was defeated last year, progressive activists’ work finally paid off in mid-September when California became the second state to institute a rent-control law. (The three-strikes law, which was significantly reformed in 2012, still disproportionately hurts communities of color.)
Both the party establishment and industry, as in 2004, are rallying behind Costa. California Sens. Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein have both endorsed him, along with state Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Recently, California Gov. Gavin Newsom began fundraising for Costa, reportedly headlining a fundraiser for the congressman earlier this month.
Costa’s biggest industry support comes from agriculture and oil and gas, and his long anti-environmental record has given him one of the lowest lifetime scores of any congressional Democrat from the League of Conservation Voters. Notably, he was one of 28 Democrats who voted to authorize the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in 2015. As Alex Kotch recently wrote in the investigative outlet Sludge, Costa is one of Koch Industries’ favorite congressional Democrats, and is one of only four Democrats who received money from the Koch’s corporate PAC after the 2014 election cycle.
There’s reason to believe Soria’s challenge is credible. Last month, Soria narrowly blocked Costa from winning the California Democratic Party’s early endorsement for the March primary, receiving 46 percent of the vote to his 49 percent. “That was huge for us, a huge win, because now the DCCC has to stay out of the race,” she said.
Soria, meanwhile, has won endorsements from State Sen. Anna Caballero, which she announced in late October, and labor groups, including IBEW Local 100, Carpenters 701, and Teamsters 431. Curiously, Costa’s campaign announced an endorsement from Caballero in late November. (Soria confirmed it was a dual endorsement, also known as “pulling a Ro Khanna.”) Two other candidates, Republican Kevin Cookingham and Democrat Kim Williams, have also announced they’re running in the 16th district race.
“People are pretty excited to hear that I’m running, and people finally feel — this is what they tell me — ‘Oh my God, we finally have a choice, we’ve never had a choice,’” Soria said. “And it’s being well-received across the board so that’s what motivates me and excites me because it is time for change in our community. I represent the future, and I’ve been doing the work here locally.”
Though the 37-year-old hopeful has called herself an “unapologetic progressive” and is running on a platform undeniably to the left of Costa’s, there isn’t anything particularly radical about her campaign. She has sworn off corporate PAC money, supports Medicare for All, and told The Intercept she supports the “principles” of the Green New Deal. But she’s also been described as “business friendly” and supportive of law enforcement during her time on the Fresno City Council.
Though Costa maintains a fundraising advantage over his opponents, with more than $575,500 cash on hand, Soria’s campaign has already raised over $150,000 in a third-quarter haul fueled primarily by small individual donors, according to recent FEC filings.
“Jim is out of touch,” Soria said. “He’s been there for a very long time, he hasn’t had to worry about having health care, he hasn’t had to worry about having a pension, he hasn’t had to worry about paying college debt. I am the living example of what today’s families are experiencing — I have six figures in college debt. That’s a big issue in our community, affordability.”
Soria said that she had been thinking about running for Congress because “things haven’t changed for the better in the community,” but was ultimately convinced when she reflected on the challenges her own family was facing.
Her father recently quit his job to care for her mother, who has Alzheimer’s disease. “My dad didn’t have a real pension and now he’s relying on being my mom’s home care worker, getting paid 20 hours a week on minimum wage,” she said. “And the increase in prescription costs, that became a very apparent issue in my family.”
“So what I realized was that the issue that my family is going through is no different than the majority of the working people in this district,” she continued. “In my opinion, we need a stronger voice, a voice that will represent working families and not corporate interests, and I think that is what has been the problem.”
“She’s a politician,” Costa, a former state senator, told the Los Angeles Times. “Now she’s trying to become an elected politician.” Costa had worked in the state legislature for over 20 years. He wrote and introduced the legislative version of what would later become the state’s notorious “three-strikes” law, aimed at imposing harsher sentences for crimes. Quigley was a 38-year-old Capitol Hill staffer and mother.
Late in the race, when the candidates were neck-and-neck in fundraising, the real estate industry dumped more than $270,000 in radio and TV ads for Costa. As a state senator, Costa had led the effort to ban most kinds of rent control in California. The disastrous 1995 law, known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, strictly limits the rent control policies cities and countries can impose, incentivizes evictions, and is widely blamed for contributing to California’s affordable housing crisis. “We’re certainly doing our best to see Senator Costa wins,” the vice president of the National Association of Realtors, Steve Cook, said at the time.
Now, 14 years later, Costa has proven to be one of the most conservative Democrats in the House. In January 2017, he became a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition, which partnered with the party’s campaign arm to recruit and push congressional candidates to the right heading into the midterm elections, despite representing a reliably blue district. Since 2016, he has voted along with President Donald Trump’s agenda nearly half the time, according to one estimate of the 115th Congress.
He’s one of just a handful of Democrats who have joined Republicans in voting to erode environmental regulations, defend U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and stall action on Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. While most House Democrats were working on articles of impeachment, Axios reported, Costa was one of six who decided to attend Trump’s White House congressional holiday ball. (Costa’s campaign did not return a request for comment.)
Next year, Costa will face the first serious primary challenge of his congressional career. Fresno City Councilmember Esmeralda Soria, a daughter of Mexican immigrant farmworkers, is aiming to unseat the eight-term incumbent. Costa has only ever had to fend off Republican opponents, and in 2014, almost lost his safe seat to an obscure, underfunded GOP challenger.
Soria hopes to capitalize on recent pushback to Costa’s policies. Though a ballot measure to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Act was defeated last year, progressive activists’ work finally paid off in mid-September when California became the second state to institute a rent-control law. (The three-strikes law, which was significantly reformed in 2012, still disproportionately hurts communities of color.)
Both the party establishment and industry, as in 2004, are rallying behind Costa. California Sens. Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein have both endorsed him, along with state Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Recently, California Gov. Gavin Newsom began fundraising for Costa, reportedly headlining a fundraiser for the congressman earlier this month.
Costa’s biggest industry support comes from agriculture and oil and gas, and his long anti-environmental record has given him one of the lowest lifetime scores of any congressional Democrat from the League of Conservation Voters. Notably, he was one of 28 Democrats who voted to authorize the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in 2015. As Alex Kotch recently wrote in the investigative outlet Sludge, Costa is one of Koch Industries’ favorite congressional Democrats, and is one of only four Democrats who received money from the Koch’s corporate PAC after the 2014 election cycle.
There’s reason to believe Soria’s challenge is credible. Last month, Soria narrowly blocked Costa from winning the California Democratic Party’s early endorsement for the March primary, receiving 46 percent of the vote to his 49 percent. “That was huge for us, a huge win, because now the DCCC has to stay out of the race,” she said.
Soria, meanwhile, has won endorsements from State Sen. Anna Caballero, which she announced in late October, and labor groups, including IBEW Local 100, Carpenters 701, and Teamsters 431. Curiously, Costa’s campaign announced an endorsement from Caballero in late November. (Soria confirmed it was a dual endorsement, also known as “pulling a Ro Khanna.”) Two other candidates, Republican Kevin Cookingham and Democrat Kim Williams, have also announced they’re running in the 16th district race.
“People are pretty excited to hear that I’m running, and people finally feel — this is what they tell me — ‘Oh my God, we finally have a choice, we’ve never had a choice,’” Soria said. “And it’s being well-received across the board so that’s what motivates me and excites me because it is time for change in our community. I represent the future, and I’ve been doing the work here locally.”
Though the 37-year-old hopeful has called herself an “unapologetic progressive” and is running on a platform undeniably to the left of Costa’s, there isn’t anything particularly radical about her campaign. She has sworn off corporate PAC money, supports Medicare for All, and told The Intercept she supports the “principles” of the Green New Deal. But she’s also been described as “business friendly” and supportive of law enforcement during her time on the Fresno City Council.
Though Costa maintains a fundraising advantage over his opponents, with more than $575,500 cash on hand, Soria’s campaign has already raised over $150,000 in a third-quarter haul fueled primarily by small individual donors, according to recent FEC filings.
“Jim is out of touch,” Soria said. “He’s been there for a very long time, he hasn’t had to worry about having health care, he hasn’t had to worry about having a pension, he hasn’t had to worry about paying college debt. I am the living example of what today’s families are experiencing — I have six figures in college debt. That’s a big issue in our community, affordability.”
Soria said that she had been thinking about running for Congress because “things haven’t changed for the better in the community,” but was ultimately convinced when she reflected on the challenges her own family was facing.
Her father recently quit his job to care for her mother, who has Alzheimer’s disease. “My dad didn’t have a real pension and now he’s relying on being my mom’s home care worker, getting paid 20 hours a week on minimum wage,” she said. “And the increase in prescription costs, that became a very apparent issue in my family.”
“So what I realized was that the issue that my family is going through is no different than the majority of the working people in this district,” she continued. “In my opinion, we need a stronger voice, a voice that will represent working families and not corporate interests, and I think that is what has been the problem.”
Press Watch: Democrats who are undecided on impeachment aren't "moderates." They're hacks
Democrats from Trump districts are wobbly on impeachment — but let's not pretend they're motivated by principle
DAN FROOMKIN - salon
DECEMBER 12, 2019 8:30PM (UTC)
What can we conclude about those few Democratic congressional representatives who claim they haven’t decided yet how to vote on impeachment?
We can conclude that they lack consistent principles.
We can conclude that, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they have chosen neither to accept it, like almost all the other members of their party, nor to ignore it, like all the members of the other party.
We can therefore conclude that they are instead making up their minds based on something else entirely.
And we can easily conclude what that is: They are basing their votes on what they think they need to do to win re-election. They are not looking into their souls. They are sticking a finger up into the wind.
Republican members of Congress at least have an intellectually consistent reason to vote against impeachment: They have chosen to throw in their lot with Trump, quite literally no matter what.
But these Democrats are in a special category. You could call them political hacks. You could call them unprincipled, opportunistic, cowardly, spineless, vacillating, fainthearted, jittery or dissolute.
Or, if you are a member of the elite political press, you could call them “moderates” and “centrists.”
The lead story on the Washington Post website Thursday morning — “House Democrats brace for some defections among moderates on impeachment of Trump” — does so many things wrong it’s really worth examining at some length.
Congressional reporters Rachael Bade and Mike DeBonis celebrate these potential defectors as “centrists” and “moderates,” while at the same time concluding with complete, omniscient certainty that their decision-making process has everything to do with political calculation and nothing to do with what they actually believe.
This, to my mind, is an astonishing abuse of political labeling — even in an era in which traditional political labels are increasingly irrelevant.
In fact, the nicest thing you could reasonably call these particular Democrats is "pragmatic," but there’s no reason to believe — and in fact there are plenty of examples to the contrary — that abandoning principles makes candidates more electable.
Bade and DeBonis write that “a core group of centrists from districts Trump won in 2016 are having second thoughts” — but not for a moment do they pretend those second thoughts have anything to do with evidence or principle:
While many knew impeachment would never be popular in their GOP-leaning districts, some have been surprised that support hasn’t increased despite negative testimony about Trump from a series of blockbuster hearings last month.
Several moderates have privately pined for other options, including a censure vote they know they’re unlikely to get. Others have even considered what one moderate called “splitting the baby”: backing one article of impeachment but not the other to try to show independence from the party.
None of that carries any form of attribution — it is some combination of the reporters’ own conclusions and, presumably, off-the-record honesty from the vacillators themselves.
In fact, the on-the-record quotes completely belie the reporters’ conclusions, but are included anyway, I guess on the assumption that the readers will see right through them:
“I’m still thinking it over,” said Rep. Susie Lee, a centrist who hails from a GOP-leaning Nevada district Trump carried in 2016. “This is a very grave decision. . . . I’m hearing all sides of it. . . . It’s mixed, it’s very mixed.”
And:
“As soon as they’re formally adopted, I’ll make a decision,” said Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), another centrist Democrat who attended a session Monday night in which moderates discussed their concerns. “I’ve said all along, I need to see all the facts. I’m not going to prejudge anything until we get every bit of information.”
Where do political reporters get the impression that it is perfectly reasonable and in fact admirable to base hugely important decisions like this on how it will play in the next election? As it happens, that’s precisely the view of Democratic leadership as well. As Bade and DeBonis note, Democratic leaders “don’t intend to whip the impeachment vote, allowing each member to make his or her own personal choice.”
The Post reporters then game this all out, once again taking as gospel the entirely speculative proposition that abandoning principles is good politics:
[T]he more votes Pelosi loses, the more Republicans will push a narrative of Democrats divided. Indeed, Republicans, who are increasingly confident they won’t lose any members, say they’re planning to highlight any increase in the number of Democratic defections as evidence of a weak case for removing Trump.
That might hurt Democrats in the short term, but in the long run it could pay dividends, boosting moderates in battleground districts ahead of their 2020 reelections.
It’s only as an afterthought that the reporters acknowledge that for some members of Congress, even in swing districts, principles still might play a role in their decision-making. They quote Rep. Susan Wild, D-Pa., who flipped a GOP-held Pennsylvania district and plans to vote for both articles:
“I know from my own inbox that there’s plenty of antagonism out there, but on the other hand I’ve also gotten enormous numbers of people texting me, emailing me, private messaging me with supportive messages,” Wild said. “I don’t really know how it plays back home at this point, so ultimately, for me, it comes down to doing the right thing, and I think this is the right thing to do.”
Look, obviously it’s more than a bit naïve to think that nakedly political considerations are ever entirely irrelevant to people facing reelection every two years. But it’s cynical even by my standards to assume that it’s the only thing that matters.
It’s also stupid to assume anyone can really predict how things will play out. I would argue that the Democratic pseudo-pragmatism embodied by folks like Rahm Emanuel routinely backfires spectacularly. And — surprise! — its most passionate supporters are often Republicans.
---
Politico reporters Sarah Ferris and Melanie Zanona wrote on Tuesday that some of the “vulnerable House Democrats” were, in an obvious desperation move, “floating the longshot idea of censuring President Donald Trump instead of impeaching him.”
Like the Post reporters, they labeled those Democrats as “centrist”.
An article by HuffPost reporters Matt Fuller and Arthur Delaney suggested another label: “bonehead”:
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) called censure a “boneheaded idea.”
“That’s just frankly one of the dumbest ideas I’ve heard in a long, long time,” Huffman said. “If this were a president lying about a blow job, that’s a censure issue. This is a president fundamentally misusing his office and obstructing Congress, involving our national security and the integrity of our democracy. If you can’t move to impeachment on something like this, frankly, we just shouldn’t take your ideas seriously.”
As Fuller and Delaney explained:
For most Democrats, part of the problem with censuring Trump instead of impeaching him is it fundamentally undermines their messaging. Democrats want to convey that this is a solemn process, one devoid of politics, and that they’re impeaching Trump because his behavior goes far beyond what is acceptable.
By suggesting a lesser course, these moderate Democrats undercut that message. They’re signaling that Trump’s actions don’t rise to that level — and it’s hard to miss their own political calculus in doing so.
And they concluded:
Politics, not the facts surrounding this impeachment case, seem to be their primary concern ― something Democrats from safer seats seemed to recognize Tuesday.
“Based on the evidence, I think the president should be impeached,” Rules Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said. “I mean, if this doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment, I don’t know what does. This is beyond the pale.”
We can conclude that they lack consistent principles.
We can conclude that, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they have chosen neither to accept it, like almost all the other members of their party, nor to ignore it, like all the members of the other party.
We can therefore conclude that they are instead making up their minds based on something else entirely.
And we can easily conclude what that is: They are basing their votes on what they think they need to do to win re-election. They are not looking into their souls. They are sticking a finger up into the wind.
Republican members of Congress at least have an intellectually consistent reason to vote against impeachment: They have chosen to throw in their lot with Trump, quite literally no matter what.
But these Democrats are in a special category. You could call them political hacks. You could call them unprincipled, opportunistic, cowardly, spineless, vacillating, fainthearted, jittery or dissolute.
Or, if you are a member of the elite political press, you could call them “moderates” and “centrists.”
The lead story on the Washington Post website Thursday morning — “House Democrats brace for some defections among moderates on impeachment of Trump” — does so many things wrong it’s really worth examining at some length.
Congressional reporters Rachael Bade and Mike DeBonis celebrate these potential defectors as “centrists” and “moderates,” while at the same time concluding with complete, omniscient certainty that their decision-making process has everything to do with political calculation and nothing to do with what they actually believe.
This, to my mind, is an astonishing abuse of political labeling — even in an era in which traditional political labels are increasingly irrelevant.
In fact, the nicest thing you could reasonably call these particular Democrats is "pragmatic," but there’s no reason to believe — and in fact there are plenty of examples to the contrary — that abandoning principles makes candidates more electable.
Bade and DeBonis write that “a core group of centrists from districts Trump won in 2016 are having second thoughts” — but not for a moment do they pretend those second thoughts have anything to do with evidence or principle:
While many knew impeachment would never be popular in their GOP-leaning districts, some have been surprised that support hasn’t increased despite negative testimony about Trump from a series of blockbuster hearings last month.
Several moderates have privately pined for other options, including a censure vote they know they’re unlikely to get. Others have even considered what one moderate called “splitting the baby”: backing one article of impeachment but not the other to try to show independence from the party.
None of that carries any form of attribution — it is some combination of the reporters’ own conclusions and, presumably, off-the-record honesty from the vacillators themselves.
In fact, the on-the-record quotes completely belie the reporters’ conclusions, but are included anyway, I guess on the assumption that the readers will see right through them:
“I’m still thinking it over,” said Rep. Susie Lee, a centrist who hails from a GOP-leaning Nevada district Trump carried in 2016. “This is a very grave decision. . . . I’m hearing all sides of it. . . . It’s mixed, it’s very mixed.”
And:
“As soon as they’re formally adopted, I’ll make a decision,” said Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), another centrist Democrat who attended a session Monday night in which moderates discussed their concerns. “I’ve said all along, I need to see all the facts. I’m not going to prejudge anything until we get every bit of information.”
Where do political reporters get the impression that it is perfectly reasonable and in fact admirable to base hugely important decisions like this on how it will play in the next election? As it happens, that’s precisely the view of Democratic leadership as well. As Bade and DeBonis note, Democratic leaders “don’t intend to whip the impeachment vote, allowing each member to make his or her own personal choice.”
The Post reporters then game this all out, once again taking as gospel the entirely speculative proposition that abandoning principles is good politics:
[T]he more votes Pelosi loses, the more Republicans will push a narrative of Democrats divided. Indeed, Republicans, who are increasingly confident they won’t lose any members, say they’re planning to highlight any increase in the number of Democratic defections as evidence of a weak case for removing Trump.
That might hurt Democrats in the short term, but in the long run it could pay dividends, boosting moderates in battleground districts ahead of their 2020 reelections.
It’s only as an afterthought that the reporters acknowledge that for some members of Congress, even in swing districts, principles still might play a role in their decision-making. They quote Rep. Susan Wild, D-Pa., who flipped a GOP-held Pennsylvania district and plans to vote for both articles:
“I know from my own inbox that there’s plenty of antagonism out there, but on the other hand I’ve also gotten enormous numbers of people texting me, emailing me, private messaging me with supportive messages,” Wild said. “I don’t really know how it plays back home at this point, so ultimately, for me, it comes down to doing the right thing, and I think this is the right thing to do.”
Look, obviously it’s more than a bit naïve to think that nakedly political considerations are ever entirely irrelevant to people facing reelection every two years. But it’s cynical even by my standards to assume that it’s the only thing that matters.
It’s also stupid to assume anyone can really predict how things will play out. I would argue that the Democratic pseudo-pragmatism embodied by folks like Rahm Emanuel routinely backfires spectacularly. And — surprise! — its most passionate supporters are often Republicans.
---
Politico reporters Sarah Ferris and Melanie Zanona wrote on Tuesday that some of the “vulnerable House Democrats” were, in an obvious desperation move, “floating the longshot idea of censuring President Donald Trump instead of impeaching him.”
Like the Post reporters, they labeled those Democrats as “centrist”.
An article by HuffPost reporters Matt Fuller and Arthur Delaney suggested another label: “bonehead”:
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) called censure a “boneheaded idea.”
“That’s just frankly one of the dumbest ideas I’ve heard in a long, long time,” Huffman said. “If this were a president lying about a blow job, that’s a censure issue. This is a president fundamentally misusing his office and obstructing Congress, involving our national security and the integrity of our democracy. If you can’t move to impeachment on something like this, frankly, we just shouldn’t take your ideas seriously.”
As Fuller and Delaney explained:
For most Democrats, part of the problem with censuring Trump instead of impeaching him is it fundamentally undermines their messaging. Democrats want to convey that this is a solemn process, one devoid of politics, and that they’re impeaching Trump because his behavior goes far beyond what is acceptable.
By suggesting a lesser course, these moderate Democrats undercut that message. They’re signaling that Trump’s actions don’t rise to that level — and it’s hard to miss their own political calculus in doing so.
And they concluded:
Politics, not the facts surrounding this impeachment case, seem to be their primary concern ― something Democrats from safer seats seemed to recognize Tuesday.
“Based on the evidence, I think the president should be impeached,” Rules Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said. “I mean, if this doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment, I don’t know what does. This is beyond the pale.”
Schumer scorched for whitewashing Pete King’s racist, anti-Islam, anti-LGBTQ record as soon as he announced his retirement
November 11, 2019
By David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement - raw story
U.S. Congressman Peter King, a Republican of Long Island, NY, announced bright and early Monday morning he will not seek a 15th term, and will retire at the end of 28 years in Congress. King, a strong Trump supporter, has an impressive record of holding on to a district that has voted largely Democratic, including voting for Barack Obama twice, and even Al Gore and John Kerry over George W. Bush.
Rep. King, a powerful Republican who twice served as Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, also has a record of ugly racism, anti-Islam attacks, pandering to the lowest forms of bigotry, and serving the powerful by demeaning minorities and the poor.
King last year defended ICE in the wake of the deaths of two migrant children. He also likened NFL athletes quietly protesting police violence and killing of Black people to giving a Nazi salute. And he declared there are “too many mosques” in America.
The Congressman from Long Island defended NYPD officers in the killing of Eric Garner, saying if the man who was placed in a chokehold (which violates police policy) had not been “obese,” he would not have died – while at the same time saying “police had no reason to know that he was in serious condition.”
King hunkered down to protect the moneyed interests, attacking the grassroots viral phenomenon known as Occupy Wall Street, calling it a “ragtag mob” of “anarchists.” He warned if the movement were given any “legitimacy” it could go on to have an impact on shaping policy. “We can’t allow that to happen,” he said, despite it having significant support across the country.
That’s just a brief and recent history of Congressman King’s remarks – his policy stances are an entirely different, albeit disturbing matter. He’s voted against the right of marriage and adoption for same-sex couples, and voted against banning anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
And there’s a lot more too, over his 28 years in Congress.
Democrats are now hoping to flip the district, which just moved slightly left to “lean Republican” after King’s announcement.
And yet, here’s Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, whitewashing – or at least, ignoring or excusing – King’s abysmal record (and by tweeting from a right wing news source.) Senator Schumer’s “kind” words come just days before Trump’s public impeachment inquiry hearings – an impeachment King said in his retirement announcement he will vote against.
Chuck Schumer✔
@SenSchumer
Peter King stood head & shoulders above everyone else
He’s been principled & never let others push him away from his principles
He’s fiercely loved America, Long Island, and his Irish heritage and left a lasting mark on all 3
I will miss him in Congress & value his friendship https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1193849653189591040 …
Rep. King, a powerful Republican who twice served as Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, also has a record of ugly racism, anti-Islam attacks, pandering to the lowest forms of bigotry, and serving the powerful by demeaning minorities and the poor.
King last year defended ICE in the wake of the deaths of two migrant children. He also likened NFL athletes quietly protesting police violence and killing of Black people to giving a Nazi salute. And he declared there are “too many mosques” in America.
The Congressman from Long Island defended NYPD officers in the killing of Eric Garner, saying if the man who was placed in a chokehold (which violates police policy) had not been “obese,” he would not have died – while at the same time saying “police had no reason to know that he was in serious condition.”
King hunkered down to protect the moneyed interests, attacking the grassroots viral phenomenon known as Occupy Wall Street, calling it a “ragtag mob” of “anarchists.” He warned if the movement were given any “legitimacy” it could go on to have an impact on shaping policy. “We can’t allow that to happen,” he said, despite it having significant support across the country.
That’s just a brief and recent history of Congressman King’s remarks – his policy stances are an entirely different, albeit disturbing matter. He’s voted against the right of marriage and adoption for same-sex couples, and voted against banning anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
And there’s a lot more too, over his 28 years in Congress.
Democrats are now hoping to flip the district, which just moved slightly left to “lean Republican” after King’s announcement.
And yet, here’s Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, whitewashing – or at least, ignoring or excusing – King’s abysmal record (and by tweeting from a right wing news source.) Senator Schumer’s “kind” words come just days before Trump’s public impeachment inquiry hearings – an impeachment King said in his retirement announcement he will vote against.
Chuck Schumer✔
@SenSchumer
Peter King stood head & shoulders above everyone else
He’s been principled & never let others push him away from his principles
He’s fiercely loved America, Long Island, and his Irish heritage and left a lasting mark on all 3
I will miss him in Congress & value his friendship https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1193849653189591040 …
corporate demos selling out workers!!!
CENTRIST DEMOCRATS HAVE A NEW IDEA TO WIN REELECTION: IGNORE LABOR AND GIVE TRUMP A MAJOR TRADE DEAL
Ryan Grim - the intercept
October 29 2019, 5:00 a.m.
REP. CHERI BUSTOS, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is advocating internally for Democrats to wave through the House President Donald Trump’s renegotiated NAFTA, without any of the revisions demanded by labor unions and environmentalists — and despite concerns that it locks in high prescription drug prices.
Bustos has argued to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that approving Trump’s free trade deal is important for vulnerable House Democrats who recently flipped Republicans seats, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the Bustos strategy. The argument goes that those vulnerable Democrats would be able to demonstrate to constituents that while they may be pursuing impeachment, they are also willing to work across party lines with the president. Inside the House caucus, the messaging is referred to as showing the ability to “walk and chew gum at the same time.”
Pelosi’s office said the speaker did not intend to allow the trade agreement to move forward without addressing concerns from environmental, labor, and patients’ rights groups. A spokesperson for Bustos emphasized the Congresswoman’s support for labor and environment issues, and stated: “She and the speaker have taken meetings together with stakeholders to discuss these issues. The Congresswoman has faith in her colleagues currently working with our trade groups to resolve these issues – and has withheld her position on the trade deal until we see this process reach its conclusion – which she hopes is a trade deal that has support from a broad set of stakeholders. As she has said for months, there is still work to be done before we reach that point.” A House leadership aide suggested that Bustos and the centrists pushing for a vote have an uphill climb, because the fall and spring floor schedule is crowded, and Bustos currently lacks the sway to work her will.
Bustos has help in making the DCCC’s argument to the caucus: former caucus Chair Joe Crowley, who was ousted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and is now a paid lobbyist for Trump’s revised NAFTA, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. He’s joined in the effort by former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, who has also become a lobbyist for Trump’s trade deal.
Republicans, too, are urging the strategy on. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, the top-ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, told CNBC viewers on Friday that he was optimistic Democrats would soon sign off on Trump’s deal. “I think we’re a couple weeks from getting a green light,” he said. Pelosi, he argued, needed a political win for moderates in the context of the impeachment fight, echoing the Bustos argument.
“This new trade agreement is everything Democrats dreamed of for labor and environment,” he said. “They have never sniffed the kinds of reforms you’re seeing in this agreement, and for her moderate and competitive members, they can’t go home with just impeachment in their pocket. They’ve got to have some economic growth.”
The push represents a remarkable gamble: that it is worth undermining key constituencies by signing a subpar agreement on the chance that it could help a handful of Democrats in swing districts win reelection. In addition, the assessment itself is questionable; if a voter is angry that a Democrat voted to impeach Trump, it’s difficult to see how that anger would be lessened by learning that the representative also voted for Trump’s trade deal. Endorsing bad Republican policy for uncertain political gain may be a hallmark of Democratic centrism, but supporting Trump’s unrevised trade deal is an unusually extreme example.
Rank-and-file House Democrats are worried that the poorly negotiated deal would lock in lower wages, environmental destruction, and higher drug prices for decades. USMCA is a renegotiated version of NAFTA, but only goes into effect if and when it is approved by Congress. The legislative branch is negotiating changes to the deal that would then need to be agreed to by Canada and Mexico. Without a new agreement, the old NAFTA remains in effect indefinitely.
---
Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, has been making a similar argument to Bustos’s, but less for protection of vulnerable members and more because he believes that the deal is good enough. Unions, he has argued internally, will just have to go along. He has proposed a divide-and-conquer strategy, by appending pension reform — a high priority of the Teamsters and a handful of other unions — to the deal in the hopes of splitting a few unions off from the labor movement and winning their support. That would allow House leaders to say that labor is divided on the question, so the party might as well vote yes.
The three areas in which the agreement faces the most resistance are in environmental protections, labor rights, and drug prices. Unions in particular are worried that there are no serious enforcement mechanisms that would require Mexico to raise labor standards and extend protections to union organizers. “I hear a lot of the frontliners want to see it passed,” texted one House Democrat nervous that the deal will get rammed through. “But if the final text doesn’t have real labor and environmental standards, AND WITH REAL ENFORCEMENT, then we shouldn’t even bring it up for a vote.”
The push from centrist Democrats began quietly in the summer, with 14 Democrats signing a letter to House leaders. “We write in support of continued negotiations through the upcoming recess, to ensure a vote on a bipartisan agreement by the end of this year. It is imperative that we reach a negotiated agreement early in the fall,” read the letter signed by Scott Peters, chair of the New Democrat Coalition, the corporate wing of the party, as well as Reps. Collin Allred, Kendra Horn, Haley Stevens, Anthony Brindisi, Joe Cunningham, Lizzie Fletcher, Ben McAdams, Josh Harder, Lou Correa, Sharice Davids, TJ Cox, Susie Lee, and Greg Stanton.
Reps. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and other centrist and conservative Democrats have continued insisting publicly on the need for quick action throughout the summer and fall. “We gotta make this happen,” insisted Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., at an event with Trump’s agriculture secretary.
There is currently a working group hashing out revisions to the pact, going back and forth with the White House’s top trade official, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Bustos’s staff has signaled to members of Congress concerned that she is trying to give the agreement away that Bustos supports the working group process, but the pressure from Bustos and the moderates to move quickly gives the White House the upper hand in negotiations where they’d otherwise be on the defensive. After all, if Democrats do nothing and win the White House, they would be able to negotiate a much stronger agreement.
“The Democrats and Congress seem to be making progress with the USTR. Now is not the time to do anything but continue to ensure what is passed by the House helps drive down drug prices in the United States,” said Jonathan Kimball of the trade group the Association for Accessible Medicines.
The trade group, which represents generic drug companies, is pushing against big pharma over provisions that would extend and expand drug company monopolies on patented drugs, blocking cheaper generics from the market. The treaty also expands the definition of what makes a biologic drug, which would put many more medicines off limits to generics for a longer stretch of time, keeping prices high. The treaty would block Congress from doing anything significant legislatively to lower drug prices, even as Democrats ran their 2018 campaign significantly on a promise to lower drug prices.
Unions, meanwhile, are pushing to strengthen provisions that would push Mexico to enact and enforce labor reform and raise wages for Mexican workers, which would make it easier for American workers to compete. Labor officials note that Mexico has neglected to fund its stated commitment to labor reform, and Neal recently traveled to Mexico to try to extract concessions from the Mexican government on enforceability. He came away with a letter of assurance from the Mexican president, which unions have dismissed as unserious.
The Sierra Club has been weighing in on the agreement for the last three years, Ben Beachy told The Intercept, and opposes it in its current form. He directs the group’s “A Living Economy” initiative, which advocates for green economic policy. “The deal as it stands is a pro-polluter deal any way you slice it,” Beachy said. “It not only fails to mention climate change, but would actively contribute to the climate crisis. Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 would perpetuate NAFTA’s outsourcing of pollution and jobs while giving new handouts to fossil fuel corporations.” The group has put out numerous statements regarding concerns that the current deal lacks binding environmental standards, and recently signed a letter along with 110 members of Congress calling for the new deal to address the climate crisis in a meaningful way.
And though Bustos is working in their name, not all front-line Democrats are united on putting through the deal. “We shouldn’t just ram anything through,” said one. “If we don’t get it right, we never get it back.”
Bustos has argued to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that approving Trump’s free trade deal is important for vulnerable House Democrats who recently flipped Republicans seats, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the Bustos strategy. The argument goes that those vulnerable Democrats would be able to demonstrate to constituents that while they may be pursuing impeachment, they are also willing to work across party lines with the president. Inside the House caucus, the messaging is referred to as showing the ability to “walk and chew gum at the same time.”
Pelosi’s office said the speaker did not intend to allow the trade agreement to move forward without addressing concerns from environmental, labor, and patients’ rights groups. A spokesperson for Bustos emphasized the Congresswoman’s support for labor and environment issues, and stated: “She and the speaker have taken meetings together with stakeholders to discuss these issues. The Congresswoman has faith in her colleagues currently working with our trade groups to resolve these issues – and has withheld her position on the trade deal until we see this process reach its conclusion – which she hopes is a trade deal that has support from a broad set of stakeholders. As she has said for months, there is still work to be done before we reach that point.” A House leadership aide suggested that Bustos and the centrists pushing for a vote have an uphill climb, because the fall and spring floor schedule is crowded, and Bustos currently lacks the sway to work her will.
Bustos has help in making the DCCC’s argument to the caucus: former caucus Chair Joe Crowley, who was ousted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and is now a paid lobbyist for Trump’s revised NAFTA, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. He’s joined in the effort by former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, who has also become a lobbyist for Trump’s trade deal.
Republicans, too, are urging the strategy on. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, the top-ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, told CNBC viewers on Friday that he was optimistic Democrats would soon sign off on Trump’s deal. “I think we’re a couple weeks from getting a green light,” he said. Pelosi, he argued, needed a political win for moderates in the context of the impeachment fight, echoing the Bustos argument.
“This new trade agreement is everything Democrats dreamed of for labor and environment,” he said. “They have never sniffed the kinds of reforms you’re seeing in this agreement, and for her moderate and competitive members, they can’t go home with just impeachment in their pocket. They’ve got to have some economic growth.”
The push represents a remarkable gamble: that it is worth undermining key constituencies by signing a subpar agreement on the chance that it could help a handful of Democrats in swing districts win reelection. In addition, the assessment itself is questionable; if a voter is angry that a Democrat voted to impeach Trump, it’s difficult to see how that anger would be lessened by learning that the representative also voted for Trump’s trade deal. Endorsing bad Republican policy for uncertain political gain may be a hallmark of Democratic centrism, but supporting Trump’s unrevised trade deal is an unusually extreme example.
Rank-and-file House Democrats are worried that the poorly negotiated deal would lock in lower wages, environmental destruction, and higher drug prices for decades. USMCA is a renegotiated version of NAFTA, but only goes into effect if and when it is approved by Congress. The legislative branch is negotiating changes to the deal that would then need to be agreed to by Canada and Mexico. Without a new agreement, the old NAFTA remains in effect indefinitely.
---
Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, has been making a similar argument to Bustos’s, but less for protection of vulnerable members and more because he believes that the deal is good enough. Unions, he has argued internally, will just have to go along. He has proposed a divide-and-conquer strategy, by appending pension reform — a high priority of the Teamsters and a handful of other unions — to the deal in the hopes of splitting a few unions off from the labor movement and winning their support. That would allow House leaders to say that labor is divided on the question, so the party might as well vote yes.
The three areas in which the agreement faces the most resistance are in environmental protections, labor rights, and drug prices. Unions in particular are worried that there are no serious enforcement mechanisms that would require Mexico to raise labor standards and extend protections to union organizers. “I hear a lot of the frontliners want to see it passed,” texted one House Democrat nervous that the deal will get rammed through. “But if the final text doesn’t have real labor and environmental standards, AND WITH REAL ENFORCEMENT, then we shouldn’t even bring it up for a vote.”
The push from centrist Democrats began quietly in the summer, with 14 Democrats signing a letter to House leaders. “We write in support of continued negotiations through the upcoming recess, to ensure a vote on a bipartisan agreement by the end of this year. It is imperative that we reach a negotiated agreement early in the fall,” read the letter signed by Scott Peters, chair of the New Democrat Coalition, the corporate wing of the party, as well as Reps. Collin Allred, Kendra Horn, Haley Stevens, Anthony Brindisi, Joe Cunningham, Lizzie Fletcher, Ben McAdams, Josh Harder, Lou Correa, Sharice Davids, TJ Cox, Susie Lee, and Greg Stanton.
Reps. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and other centrist and conservative Democrats have continued insisting publicly on the need for quick action throughout the summer and fall. “We gotta make this happen,” insisted Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., at an event with Trump’s agriculture secretary.
There is currently a working group hashing out revisions to the pact, going back and forth with the White House’s top trade official, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Bustos’s staff has signaled to members of Congress concerned that she is trying to give the agreement away that Bustos supports the working group process, but the pressure from Bustos and the moderates to move quickly gives the White House the upper hand in negotiations where they’d otherwise be on the defensive. After all, if Democrats do nothing and win the White House, they would be able to negotiate a much stronger agreement.
“The Democrats and Congress seem to be making progress with the USTR. Now is not the time to do anything but continue to ensure what is passed by the House helps drive down drug prices in the United States,” said Jonathan Kimball of the trade group the Association for Accessible Medicines.
The trade group, which represents generic drug companies, is pushing against big pharma over provisions that would extend and expand drug company monopolies on patented drugs, blocking cheaper generics from the market. The treaty also expands the definition of what makes a biologic drug, which would put many more medicines off limits to generics for a longer stretch of time, keeping prices high. The treaty would block Congress from doing anything significant legislatively to lower drug prices, even as Democrats ran their 2018 campaign significantly on a promise to lower drug prices.
Unions, meanwhile, are pushing to strengthen provisions that would push Mexico to enact and enforce labor reform and raise wages for Mexican workers, which would make it easier for American workers to compete. Labor officials note that Mexico has neglected to fund its stated commitment to labor reform, and Neal recently traveled to Mexico to try to extract concessions from the Mexican government on enforceability. He came away with a letter of assurance from the Mexican president, which unions have dismissed as unserious.
The Sierra Club has been weighing in on the agreement for the last three years, Ben Beachy told The Intercept, and opposes it in its current form. He directs the group’s “A Living Economy” initiative, which advocates for green economic policy. “The deal as it stands is a pro-polluter deal any way you slice it,” Beachy said. “It not only fails to mention climate change, but would actively contribute to the climate crisis. Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 would perpetuate NAFTA’s outsourcing of pollution and jobs while giving new handouts to fossil fuel corporations.” The group has put out numerous statements regarding concerns that the current deal lacks binding environmental standards, and recently signed a letter along with 110 members of Congress calling for the new deal to address the climate crisis in a meaningful way.
And though Bustos is working in their name, not all front-line Democrats are united on putting through the deal. “We shouldn’t just ram anything through,” said one. “If we don’t get it right, we never get it back.”
CENTRIST DEMOCRATS, LED BY REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER, TO FUNDRAISE WITH CORPORATE LOBBY GROUP SEEKING TO DEFEAT DEMOCRATIC AGENDA
Lee Fang - the intercept
October 28 2019, 3:00 a.m.
THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, the largest lobbying group representing corporate interests in the world, has worked furiously to defeat Democratic policies, from playing a key role in battling the Affordable Care Act, to spreading climate change denial, to more recent efforts to block H.R. 1, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s signature campaign reform and voting rights bill.
Now a group of centrist Democrats, led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., is scheduled to join with the Chamber in a bid to raise money.
A fundraiser invite obtained by The Intercept shows that Gottheimer and Rep. Tom Reed, R-N.Y., are scheduled to appear at the Chamber PAC’s town house on Capitol Hill on October 29. The event honors the “Problem Solvers Caucus,” an offshoot of the centrist project No Labels. Contributions will benefit the affiliate centrist Democrat fundraising committee known as Across the Aisles PAC.
Molly Allen, a fundraiser who helped put together the event, noted in an email, “As usual with these events, we expect strong Member attendance and a lively discussion!”
The Chamber was one of the largest beneficiaries of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, funneling tens of millions of dollars of undisclosed corporate money into congressional elections, largely to elect Republican lawmakers. Democrats have long courted the “voice of business,” only to see the Chamber work tirelessly to boost GOP campaigns.
The Intercept has previously documented the role of GOP billionaires in financing an array of PACs that played a pivotal role in electing centrist Democrats during the 2018 midterm elections. Gottheimer has also earned the ire of Democrats by working to undermine party unity on votes to constrain the Saudi Arabia-led war in Yemen and to mandate better conditions for those detained at the border. Gottheimer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Early in the Obama administration, then-Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., a leading voice for centrist Democrats, joined the Chamber-backed effort to block labor union reform, known as the Employee Free Choice Act, as well as the Waxman-Markey legislation to cap carbon emissions from industrial polluters. The senator retired from office and joined the Chamber as a consultant.
Despite Bayh’s loyalty to the business lobby, when he reentered politics in 2016, running to reclaim a Senate seat in Indiana, the Chamber poured millions of dollars into undisclosed ads benefiting his GOP opponent, now-Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind.
The Chamber’s political donations still tilt overwhelmingly to the Republican Party, though in recent years, the group has sought to boost centrist Democrats. Last year, the Chamber’s PAC money gave about 80 percent of funds to GOP candidates and committees, while also donating to centrists such as Gottheimer, Rep. Donald Norcross, D-N.J., and Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.
Voluntary disclosures show the largest donors include Dow Chemical, Chevron, Microsoft, AT&T, Goldman Sachs, Anthem, Coca-Cola, and ConocoPhillips.
The Chamber is not only shaping election outcomes, litigation, and the legislative debate. In 2011, the Chamber was caught negotiating with a group of defense contractors on a scheme to spy on labor activists, journalists, and Democratic-leaning groups such as MoveOn.org.
Now a group of centrist Democrats, led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., is scheduled to join with the Chamber in a bid to raise money.
A fundraiser invite obtained by The Intercept shows that Gottheimer and Rep. Tom Reed, R-N.Y., are scheduled to appear at the Chamber PAC’s town house on Capitol Hill on October 29. The event honors the “Problem Solvers Caucus,” an offshoot of the centrist project No Labels. Contributions will benefit the affiliate centrist Democrat fundraising committee known as Across the Aisles PAC.
Molly Allen, a fundraiser who helped put together the event, noted in an email, “As usual with these events, we expect strong Member attendance and a lively discussion!”
The Chamber was one of the largest beneficiaries of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, funneling tens of millions of dollars of undisclosed corporate money into congressional elections, largely to elect Republican lawmakers. Democrats have long courted the “voice of business,” only to see the Chamber work tirelessly to boost GOP campaigns.
The Intercept has previously documented the role of GOP billionaires in financing an array of PACs that played a pivotal role in electing centrist Democrats during the 2018 midterm elections. Gottheimer has also earned the ire of Democrats by working to undermine party unity on votes to constrain the Saudi Arabia-led war in Yemen and to mandate better conditions for those detained at the border. Gottheimer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Early in the Obama administration, then-Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., a leading voice for centrist Democrats, joined the Chamber-backed effort to block labor union reform, known as the Employee Free Choice Act, as well as the Waxman-Markey legislation to cap carbon emissions from industrial polluters. The senator retired from office and joined the Chamber as a consultant.
Despite Bayh’s loyalty to the business lobby, when he reentered politics in 2016, running to reclaim a Senate seat in Indiana, the Chamber poured millions of dollars into undisclosed ads benefiting his GOP opponent, now-Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind.
The Chamber’s political donations still tilt overwhelmingly to the Republican Party, though in recent years, the group has sought to boost centrist Democrats. Last year, the Chamber’s PAC money gave about 80 percent of funds to GOP candidates and committees, while also donating to centrists such as Gottheimer, Rep. Donald Norcross, D-N.J., and Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.
Voluntary disclosures show the largest donors include Dow Chemical, Chevron, Microsoft, AT&T, Goldman Sachs, Anthem, Coca-Cola, and ConocoPhillips.
The Chamber is not only shaping election outcomes, litigation, and the legislative debate. In 2011, the Chamber was caught negotiating with a group of defense contractors on a scheme to spy on labor activists, journalists, and Democratic-leaning groups such as MoveOn.org.
michael moore calls biden the hillary clinton of 2020!!!
JOE BIDEN’S SUPER PAC IS BEING ORGANIZED BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS FOR HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, WEAPONS MAKERS, FINANCE
Lee Fang - the intercept
October 25 2019, 7:47 a.m.
JOE BIDEN BEGAN the presidential campaign with a commanding lead in the polls, but questions surrounding his ability to power through the primary, along with relatively weak fundraising, has cast new doubt about his campaign.
In an effort to revive Biden’s prospects, prominent supporters of the former vice president are mobilizing to establish a Super PAC, a bid that the Biden campaign appeared to endorse on Thursday, according to a report in Bloomberg. The move represents a reversal from earlier this year, when Biden rejected support from Super PACs, which can receive unlimited donations from corporations or individuals.
Though Biden has pledged not to take contributions from registered lobbyists, the prohibition appears not to apply to big-dollar organizers of his Super PAC. Among the individuals involved with the effort are several lobbyists for leading corporations and foreign governments.
Longtime Biden supporter Larry Rasky, one of the people involved with the big-money effort, is the founder of lobbying firm Rasky Partners, which is currently registered to lobby on behalf of Raytheon, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, among other clients.
Steve Schale, a former Obama campaign strategist, is a registered state lobbyist with Cardenas Partners, a Florida lobbying firm founded by former Jeb Bush adviser Al Cardenas. Schale’s current client list includes the Florida Hospital Association, JetBlue Airways, State Farm Insurance, Walt Disney Parks, AT&T, and the Associated Industries of Florida.
As The Intercept has reported, despite Biden’s promise to reject lobbyist money, his campaign launched with a fundraiser hosted at the home of Comcast’s chief lobbyist, and his political action committee has a long record of accepting lobbyist cash.
Rasky, Schale, and the Biden campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Rasky Partners lists a number of successful client campaigns on its website, touting efforts to win congressional support for banks and defense contractors. Disclosures show that the firm was previously retained for communications services to the Education Finance Council, a lobby group for student loan companies.
Schale previously served as the spokesperson for the Draft Joe Biden campaign in 2016 and before that, directed the Obama-Biden campaign operation in Florida.
It’s not the first time Biden supporters have floated a Super PAC. In April, Matt Tompkins, a Democratic fundraiser, launched a Super PAC called For the People, designed to support Biden’s campaign. The group never got off the ground. Federal Election Commission records show that the group has not raised any money.
But this time may be different. Bernard Schwartz, a wealthy financier who has organized dinners with prominent centrist Democrats in order to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., from gaining the Democratic nomination, is reportedly in talks to fund the new Super PAC. Schwartz is known for deep-pocketed donations. In 2016 alone, Schwartz, through his foundation, gave $1 million to Third Way, a centrist group backed by corporate donors that has vigorously opposed Medicare for All and other ideas centered on tackling economic inequality.
The Super PAC could inject badly needed cash. In the most recent quarterly campaign filing, Biden revealed that his campaign had about $8.9 million in cash reserves, far less than many of his closest rivals. Sanders’s campaign had $33 million in cash on hand, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., had about $25 million.
The money churn is far more acute with Biden, who relies on a relatively small pool of elite donors who have already “maxed out” with $2,700 donations. Warren and Sanders have a larger base of fundraising supporters giving small amounts, which they may continue to tap.
Biden has articulated the problem with big-money donations in the past, noting that privately financed elections allow those donors greater access to politicians than ordinary Americans.
“Lobbyists aren’t bad people, special-interest groups are not bad people, but guess what? They’re corrosive,” said Biden during a 2007 campaign event.
“It’s human nature. If you, Lynn, bundle $250,000 for me, all legal, and then you call me after I’m elected and say, ‘Joe, I’d like to talk to you about something. You didn’t buy me. But it’s human nature, you helped me, I’m going to say, ‘Sure, Lynn, come on in,'” he explained.
“The front of the line is always filled with people whose pockets are filled,” said Biden.
In an effort to revive Biden’s prospects, prominent supporters of the former vice president are mobilizing to establish a Super PAC, a bid that the Biden campaign appeared to endorse on Thursday, according to a report in Bloomberg. The move represents a reversal from earlier this year, when Biden rejected support from Super PACs, which can receive unlimited donations from corporations or individuals.
Though Biden has pledged not to take contributions from registered lobbyists, the prohibition appears not to apply to big-dollar organizers of his Super PAC. Among the individuals involved with the effort are several lobbyists for leading corporations and foreign governments.
Longtime Biden supporter Larry Rasky, one of the people involved with the big-money effort, is the founder of lobbying firm Rasky Partners, which is currently registered to lobby on behalf of Raytheon, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, among other clients.
Steve Schale, a former Obama campaign strategist, is a registered state lobbyist with Cardenas Partners, a Florida lobbying firm founded by former Jeb Bush adviser Al Cardenas. Schale’s current client list includes the Florida Hospital Association, JetBlue Airways, State Farm Insurance, Walt Disney Parks, AT&T, and the Associated Industries of Florida.
As The Intercept has reported, despite Biden’s promise to reject lobbyist money, his campaign launched with a fundraiser hosted at the home of Comcast’s chief lobbyist, and his political action committee has a long record of accepting lobbyist cash.
Rasky, Schale, and the Biden campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Rasky Partners lists a number of successful client campaigns on its website, touting efforts to win congressional support for banks and defense contractors. Disclosures show that the firm was previously retained for communications services to the Education Finance Council, a lobby group for student loan companies.
Schale previously served as the spokesperson for the Draft Joe Biden campaign in 2016 and before that, directed the Obama-Biden campaign operation in Florida.
It’s not the first time Biden supporters have floated a Super PAC. In April, Matt Tompkins, a Democratic fundraiser, launched a Super PAC called For the People, designed to support Biden’s campaign. The group never got off the ground. Federal Election Commission records show that the group has not raised any money.
But this time may be different. Bernard Schwartz, a wealthy financier who has organized dinners with prominent centrist Democrats in order to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., from gaining the Democratic nomination, is reportedly in talks to fund the new Super PAC. Schwartz is known for deep-pocketed donations. In 2016 alone, Schwartz, through his foundation, gave $1 million to Third Way, a centrist group backed by corporate donors that has vigorously opposed Medicare for All and other ideas centered on tackling economic inequality.
The Super PAC could inject badly needed cash. In the most recent quarterly campaign filing, Biden revealed that his campaign had about $8.9 million in cash reserves, far less than many of his closest rivals. Sanders’s campaign had $33 million in cash on hand, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., had about $25 million.
The money churn is far more acute with Biden, who relies on a relatively small pool of elite donors who have already “maxed out” with $2,700 donations. Warren and Sanders have a larger base of fundraising supporters giving small amounts, which they may continue to tap.
Biden has articulated the problem with big-money donations in the past, noting that privately financed elections allow those donors greater access to politicians than ordinary Americans.
“Lobbyists aren’t bad people, special-interest groups are not bad people, but guess what? They’re corrosive,” said Biden during a 2007 campaign event.
“It’s human nature. If you, Lynn, bundle $250,000 for me, all legal, and then you call me after I’m elected and say, ‘Joe, I’d like to talk to you about something. You didn’t buy me. But it’s human nature, you helped me, I’m going to say, ‘Sure, Lynn, come on in,'” he explained.
“The front of the line is always filled with people whose pockets are filled,” said Biden.
WAYS AND MEANS CHAIR RICHARD NEAL SIDES WITH PHARMA AND GOP AGAINST AMENDMENTS TO STRENGTHEN DRUG-PRICING BILL
Aída Chávez - the intercept
October 23 2019, 2:21 p.m.
AT AROUND 9:30 on Tuesday night, a full 12 hours after the markup of several pieces of health care legislation had begun in the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, introduced a series of amendments designed to push H.R.3 — Nancy Pelosi’s signature drug-pricing legislation — in a more progressive direction.
“It’s good to know that at 9:30, there are so many present people here,” Doggett quipped. Doggett had withheld sharing his amendments with the committee until late on Monday night in order to pressure both House Democrats and Republicans to pass a stronger bill. That cut against instructions from Committee Chair Richard Neal, D-Mass., who had urged members of the committee not to offer amendments. The first Doggett amendment was a measure to expand the number of prescription drugs that could be negotiated under the bill.
“The chances that the typical patient will see their prices lowered are akin to winning the lottery, said Doggett, criticizing the underlying legislation as too weak. “Is it so burdensome to ask that a few more drugs be done? No, it’s not.”
Republicans, unsurprisingly, became flustered at the introduction of the progressive amendments. Ranking Member Kevin Brady, R-Texas, responded by saying that the amendments were “sprung on” the committee — and chided Doggett for undermining an opportunity for bipartisanship on the bill. “As Republicans, we believe this is a dangerous and extreme approach.” Doggett’s amendment only lifted the number of drugs to be negotiated to 50 after five years, with a later increase to 100 after 10 years.
But even most House Democrats sided with the pharmaceutical industry. Neal quickly brought Doggett’s first amendment to a vote, and the committee quickly voted it down. Doggett was one of only three “aye” votes, Neal not among them.
And only three other Democrats on the panel voted for another amendment proposed by Doggett, to expand access to the lower negotiated rates to the uninsured: Reps. Don Beyer of Virginia, Judy Chu of California, and Gwen Moore of Wisconsin. Doggett added that his proposals are just “modest corrections for big impact.”
“It’s not going to be a bill that’s perfect,” Beyer said as the markup concluded. “It’s not going to make everybody happy, but it’s going to save a lot of lives. This is time to act.”
On Wednesday, Chu told reporters that Neal urged Democrats not to introduce any amendments in order to appear as “unified as possible” during the hearing. “Mr. Doggett did it anyway, and I just felt in good conscience that I had to vote for it,” she said.
But, Chu said, she believes that “there are more Dems on the committee that support [Doggett’s] idea” and that similar amendments will come up on the House floor. When asked whether the directive to keep the bill limited in committee came from Neal himself, Chu said “it was” the chair’s philosophy. “It was strongly urged that we not have amendments.”
H.R.3, NOW NAMED after the late Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, would allow the secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with drug companies on the prices of at least 35 drugs per year. Lowering drug prices is a top legislative priority for the Democratic caucus and considered an opportunity for bipartisanship, since even President Donald Trump has expressed interest in getting something passed.
For months, progressive members have worked to push the proposal further left. Though they have extracted several concessions from leadership, including dropping a contentious provision on arbitration, the caucus’s left flank has remained frustrated with aspects of the bill. Ahead of markups, Democratic leaders increased the minimum number of drugs from 25 to 35, in addition to requiring negotiation for certain newly released drugs. In a statement last month, the Congressional Progressive Caucus noted that they were “pleased” with the changes but still had concerns. For the left, there’s no reason not to support a bill that would cover more drugs for more people.
Democrats cite broad public support for a range of progressive policies to take on the pharmaceutical industry. Recent polling by Social Security Works and the left-leaning think tank Data for Progress shows that, as of September, 79 percent of voters support allowing companies to produce generics if the government determines prices are beyond patients’ ability to pay, including 84 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of Republicans, and 80 percent of independents.
Last week, CPC Co-Chair Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., expressed concerns that the bill does not go far enough, saying that he didn’t know why it shouldn’t require lower prices for more drugs. “If one person would give me that answer, I would be very happy,” he told reporters.
Neal told The Hill on Tuesday ahead of the markup that he intended to “stick with the measure in front of us,” declining to say whether his opposition to Doggett’s amendments had to do with substance. But the 70-year-old lawmaker, who publicly opposes Medicare for All, is one of the biggest beneficiaries of pharmaceutical and insurance industries cash. According to Kaiser Health News, he’s received $670,100 in campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies since 2007. Neal’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Neal is also facing a primary challenge in Massachusetts’ 1st Congressional District from Alex Morse, who became Holyoke’s youngest and first openly gay mayor at age 22 and is running as a proponent of Medicare for All. Morse is backed by Justice Democrats, the group that helped New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez win her long-shot primary race, and also supports sex work decriminalization, defunding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Green New Deal.
Republicans, meanwhile, relied on conservative talking points about the bill undermining innovation and taking away from the pharmaceutical industry’s profits. Republican Rep. George Holding at one point broached the question of whether the bill was even constitutional, which got a few quiet chuckles in the room, and suggested that the committee hold further hearings on that issue.
Tensions between progressive and moderate Democrats will likely escalate as the legislation could come up for a floor vote as soon as next week. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that Pelosi’s drug-pricing plan won’t be considered in the upper chamber, so the debate within the House is not so much about passing legislation as it is a preview of how Democrats would take on the pharmaceutical industry should they win the White House and the Senate next year.
“It’s good to know that at 9:30, there are so many present people here,” Doggett quipped. Doggett had withheld sharing his amendments with the committee until late on Monday night in order to pressure both House Democrats and Republicans to pass a stronger bill. That cut against instructions from Committee Chair Richard Neal, D-Mass., who had urged members of the committee not to offer amendments. The first Doggett amendment was a measure to expand the number of prescription drugs that could be negotiated under the bill.
“The chances that the typical patient will see their prices lowered are akin to winning the lottery, said Doggett, criticizing the underlying legislation as too weak. “Is it so burdensome to ask that a few more drugs be done? No, it’s not.”
Republicans, unsurprisingly, became flustered at the introduction of the progressive amendments. Ranking Member Kevin Brady, R-Texas, responded by saying that the amendments were “sprung on” the committee — and chided Doggett for undermining an opportunity for bipartisanship on the bill. “As Republicans, we believe this is a dangerous and extreme approach.” Doggett’s amendment only lifted the number of drugs to be negotiated to 50 after five years, with a later increase to 100 after 10 years.
But even most House Democrats sided with the pharmaceutical industry. Neal quickly brought Doggett’s first amendment to a vote, and the committee quickly voted it down. Doggett was one of only three “aye” votes, Neal not among them.
And only three other Democrats on the panel voted for another amendment proposed by Doggett, to expand access to the lower negotiated rates to the uninsured: Reps. Don Beyer of Virginia, Judy Chu of California, and Gwen Moore of Wisconsin. Doggett added that his proposals are just “modest corrections for big impact.”
“It’s not going to be a bill that’s perfect,” Beyer said as the markup concluded. “It’s not going to make everybody happy, but it’s going to save a lot of lives. This is time to act.”
On Wednesday, Chu told reporters that Neal urged Democrats not to introduce any amendments in order to appear as “unified as possible” during the hearing. “Mr. Doggett did it anyway, and I just felt in good conscience that I had to vote for it,” she said.
But, Chu said, she believes that “there are more Dems on the committee that support [Doggett’s] idea” and that similar amendments will come up on the House floor. When asked whether the directive to keep the bill limited in committee came from Neal himself, Chu said “it was” the chair’s philosophy. “It was strongly urged that we not have amendments.”
H.R.3, NOW NAMED after the late Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, would allow the secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with drug companies on the prices of at least 35 drugs per year. Lowering drug prices is a top legislative priority for the Democratic caucus and considered an opportunity for bipartisanship, since even President Donald Trump has expressed interest in getting something passed.
For months, progressive members have worked to push the proposal further left. Though they have extracted several concessions from leadership, including dropping a contentious provision on arbitration, the caucus’s left flank has remained frustrated with aspects of the bill. Ahead of markups, Democratic leaders increased the minimum number of drugs from 25 to 35, in addition to requiring negotiation for certain newly released drugs. In a statement last month, the Congressional Progressive Caucus noted that they were “pleased” with the changes but still had concerns. For the left, there’s no reason not to support a bill that would cover more drugs for more people.
Democrats cite broad public support for a range of progressive policies to take on the pharmaceutical industry. Recent polling by Social Security Works and the left-leaning think tank Data for Progress shows that, as of September, 79 percent of voters support allowing companies to produce generics if the government determines prices are beyond patients’ ability to pay, including 84 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of Republicans, and 80 percent of independents.
Last week, CPC Co-Chair Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., expressed concerns that the bill does not go far enough, saying that he didn’t know why it shouldn’t require lower prices for more drugs. “If one person would give me that answer, I would be very happy,” he told reporters.
Neal told The Hill on Tuesday ahead of the markup that he intended to “stick with the measure in front of us,” declining to say whether his opposition to Doggett’s amendments had to do with substance. But the 70-year-old lawmaker, who publicly opposes Medicare for All, is one of the biggest beneficiaries of pharmaceutical and insurance industries cash. According to Kaiser Health News, he’s received $670,100 in campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies since 2007. Neal’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Neal is also facing a primary challenge in Massachusetts’ 1st Congressional District from Alex Morse, who became Holyoke’s youngest and first openly gay mayor at age 22 and is running as a proponent of Medicare for All. Morse is backed by Justice Democrats, the group that helped New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez win her long-shot primary race, and also supports sex work decriminalization, defunding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Green New Deal.
Republicans, meanwhile, relied on conservative talking points about the bill undermining innovation and taking away from the pharmaceutical industry’s profits. Republican Rep. George Holding at one point broached the question of whether the bill was even constitutional, which got a few quiet chuckles in the room, and suggested that the committee hold further hearings on that issue.
Tensions between progressive and moderate Democrats will likely escalate as the legislation could come up for a floor vote as soon as next week. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that Pelosi’s drug-pricing plan won’t be considered in the upper chamber, so the debate within the House is not so much about passing legislation as it is a preview of how Democrats would take on the pharmaceutical industry should they win the White House and the Senate next year.
The more Joe Biden stumbles, the more corporate democrats freak out
Norman Solomon / Common Dreams - alterne
t
October 14, 2019
The Democratic Party’s most powerful donors are running out of options in the presidential race. Their warhorse Joe Biden is stumbling, while the other corporate-minded candidates lag far behind. For party elites, with less than four months to go before voting starts in caucuses and primaries, 2020 looks like Biden or bust.
A key problem for the Democratic establishment is that the “electability” argument is vaporizing in the political heat. Biden’s shaky performances on the campaign trail during the last few months have undermined the notion that he’s the best bet to defeat Donald Trump. The latest polling matchups say that Biden and his two strong rivals for the nomination, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, would each hypothetically beat Trump by around 10 points.
As such realities sink in, the focus is turning to where the party’s entrenched power brokers don’t want it to go—the actual merits of the candidates in terms of political history, independence from big-money special interests, and longtime commitment to positions now favored by most Democrats.
With the electability claim diminished, Biden faces a steep climb on the merits of his record and current policy stances. The looming crisis for the Biden forces is reflected in the fact that his top campaign operatives have already publicly conceded he could lose the first two nomination contests, the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.
And in an era when small donations from the grassroots are adding up to big financial hauls, Biden is so uninspiring that he’s losing the money race by a wide margin. Despite his relentless harvesting of big checks from hedge-fund managers, rich CEOs and the like, Biden’s campaign raised a total of only about $15 million in the last quarter, compared to around $25 million that Sanders and Warren each received. The New York Times noted that the duo’s fundraising totals are markers for “the collective enthusiasm in the party for progressive candidates pushing messages of sweeping change.”
But Biden continues to greatly benefit from the orientations of corporate media outlets that loudly echo the concerns of corporate Democrats (often called “moderates” or “centrists”) and their kindred spirits in realms like Wall Street. Rarely inclined to dispel the longstanding myth of “Lunch Bucket Joe,” reporting has been sparse on his legislative legacy in service to such industries as credit-card companies, banks and the healthcare business.
Media affection for Biden is matched by the biases of corporate media that—for many years—have routinely spun coverage of Sanders in negative ways, amplifying the messages from people at the helm of huge corporations. Recent months have seen no letup of anti-Bernie salvos, with Sanders as a kind of “heat shield” for Warren, catching the vast majority of the left-baiting attacks that would otherwise be aimed at her. Yet, as Warren’s campaign gains momentum, she is becoming more of a prime target for wealthy sectors and their media echo chambers.
A CNBC article summarized on-air comments from network star Jim Cramer: “The financial community is really worried about the possibility of Sen. Elizabeth Warren becoming president.” A theme among corporate executives, he said, is that “she’s got to be stopped.”
Such rumblings have grown louder since that broadcast five weeks ago, as Warren has surged into virtual ties with Biden in national polls. In late September, CNBC reported: “Democratic donors on Wall Street and in big business are preparing to sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle—or even back President Donald Trump—if Sen. Elizabeth Warren wins the party’s nomination.”
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders (who I actively support) is even more antithetical to the economic powers that be. He directly advocates for an end to the biz-as-usual that has propelled the rapacious rise of corporate power and widening economic inequality.
Sanders underscored that advocacy in an ABC interview that aired on Sunday: “What we need is, in fact—I don’t want to get people too nervous—we need a political revolution. I am, I believe, the only candidate who’s going to say to the ruling class of this country, the corporate elite: ‘Enough, enough with your greed and with your corruption. We need real change in this country.'”
And Sanders made explicit why—at the same time that Warren is loathed on Wall Street—he is even more feared and despised by champions of predatory capital. “Elizabeth considers herself—if I got the quote correctly—to be a capitalist to her bones,” he said. “I don’t. And the reason I am not is because I will not tolerate for one second the kind of greed and corruption and income and wealth inequality and so much suffering that is going on in this country today, which is unnecessary.”
Days ago, the Bernie 2020 campaign began wide distribution of a sticker that boldly says, “Billionaires Should Not Exist.” That kind of genuine progressive politics is an existential threat to the extremely wealthy, whose riches amid vast income inequality keep killing a lot of people.
Biden, speaking at the Brookings Institution in May 2018, was transparent about why corporate Democrats remain so enamored with him. “I love Bernie, but I’m not Bernie Sanders,” he said. “I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason why we’re in trouble. . . The folks at the top aren’t bad guys.”
No wonder Dianne Feinstein—snubbing fellow California senator Kamala Harris—recently hosted a high-profile fundraiser for Biden and last week formally endorsed him as “a tireless fighter for hardworking American families.” Feinstein’s net worth is close to $100 million, and her investment-banker husband Richard Blum is a billionaire.
At this point, the shaky Biden for President campaign appears to be the only realistic hope for those who want a defender of corporate greed at the top of the Democratic ticket next year. While progressives who understand Biden’s actual record are determined to prevent him from becoming the presidential nominee, “the folks at the top” are doubling down on their best chance to win the nomination for someone who says they “aren’t bad guys.”
A key problem for the Democratic establishment is that the “electability” argument is vaporizing in the political heat. Biden’s shaky performances on the campaign trail during the last few months have undermined the notion that he’s the best bet to defeat Donald Trump. The latest polling matchups say that Biden and his two strong rivals for the nomination, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, would each hypothetically beat Trump by around 10 points.
As such realities sink in, the focus is turning to where the party’s entrenched power brokers don’t want it to go—the actual merits of the candidates in terms of political history, independence from big-money special interests, and longtime commitment to positions now favored by most Democrats.
With the electability claim diminished, Biden faces a steep climb on the merits of his record and current policy stances. The looming crisis for the Biden forces is reflected in the fact that his top campaign operatives have already publicly conceded he could lose the first two nomination contests, the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.
And in an era when small donations from the grassroots are adding up to big financial hauls, Biden is so uninspiring that he’s losing the money race by a wide margin. Despite his relentless harvesting of big checks from hedge-fund managers, rich CEOs and the like, Biden’s campaign raised a total of only about $15 million in the last quarter, compared to around $25 million that Sanders and Warren each received. The New York Times noted that the duo’s fundraising totals are markers for “the collective enthusiasm in the party for progressive candidates pushing messages of sweeping change.”
But Biden continues to greatly benefit from the orientations of corporate media outlets that loudly echo the concerns of corporate Democrats (often called “moderates” or “centrists”) and their kindred spirits in realms like Wall Street. Rarely inclined to dispel the longstanding myth of “Lunch Bucket Joe,” reporting has been sparse on his legislative legacy in service to such industries as credit-card companies, banks and the healthcare business.
Media affection for Biden is matched by the biases of corporate media that—for many years—have routinely spun coverage of Sanders in negative ways, amplifying the messages from people at the helm of huge corporations. Recent months have seen no letup of anti-Bernie salvos, with Sanders as a kind of “heat shield” for Warren, catching the vast majority of the left-baiting attacks that would otherwise be aimed at her. Yet, as Warren’s campaign gains momentum, she is becoming more of a prime target for wealthy sectors and their media echo chambers.
A CNBC article summarized on-air comments from network star Jim Cramer: “The financial community is really worried about the possibility of Sen. Elizabeth Warren becoming president.” A theme among corporate executives, he said, is that “she’s got to be stopped.”
Such rumblings have grown louder since that broadcast five weeks ago, as Warren has surged into virtual ties with Biden in national polls. In late September, CNBC reported: “Democratic donors on Wall Street and in big business are preparing to sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle—or even back President Donald Trump—if Sen. Elizabeth Warren wins the party’s nomination.”
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders (who I actively support) is even more antithetical to the economic powers that be. He directly advocates for an end to the biz-as-usual that has propelled the rapacious rise of corporate power and widening economic inequality.
Sanders underscored that advocacy in an ABC interview that aired on Sunday: “What we need is, in fact—I don’t want to get people too nervous—we need a political revolution. I am, I believe, the only candidate who’s going to say to the ruling class of this country, the corporate elite: ‘Enough, enough with your greed and with your corruption. We need real change in this country.'”
And Sanders made explicit why—at the same time that Warren is loathed on Wall Street—he is even more feared and despised by champions of predatory capital. “Elizabeth considers herself—if I got the quote correctly—to be a capitalist to her bones,” he said. “I don’t. And the reason I am not is because I will not tolerate for one second the kind of greed and corruption and income and wealth inequality and so much suffering that is going on in this country today, which is unnecessary.”
Days ago, the Bernie 2020 campaign began wide distribution of a sticker that boldly says, “Billionaires Should Not Exist.” That kind of genuine progressive politics is an existential threat to the extremely wealthy, whose riches amid vast income inequality keep killing a lot of people.
Biden, speaking at the Brookings Institution in May 2018, was transparent about why corporate Democrats remain so enamored with him. “I love Bernie, but I’m not Bernie Sanders,” he said. “I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason why we’re in trouble. . . The folks at the top aren’t bad guys.”
No wonder Dianne Feinstein—snubbing fellow California senator Kamala Harris—recently hosted a high-profile fundraiser for Biden and last week formally endorsed him as “a tireless fighter for hardworking American families.” Feinstein’s net worth is close to $100 million, and her investment-banker husband Richard Blum is a billionaire.
At this point, the shaky Biden for President campaign appears to be the only realistic hope for those who want a defender of corporate greed at the top of the Democratic ticket next year. While progressives who understand Biden’s actual record are determined to prevent him from becoming the presidential nominee, “the folks at the top” are doubling down on their best chance to win the nomination for someone who says they “aren’t bad guys.”
Demand Justice targets Democratic Sen. Chris Coons for voting in favor of Trump judicial nominees
Eoin Higgins / Common Dreams - alternet
October 3, 2019
A number of Senate Democrats are angry at judicial advocacy group Demand Justice for going after the chamber’s members for voting in favor of President Donald Trump’s unprecedented slew of federal judges, but the organization’s leader isn’t backing down.
“We think that the idea of doing horse trading with this administration is not worth it,” Demand Justice executive director Brian Fallon told Politico Wednesday.
Fallon is under fire from Democratic senators who feel that Demand Justice’s September ad buy in Delaware targeting Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat, is over the line. Coons has supported a number of Trump nominees, including, Demand Justice said, some whose support of Brown v. Board of Education is in doubt.
“That was way out of line,” complained Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
But it’s in keeping with the group’s mission, as Politico explained:
Demand Justice’s message on judges is simple: Democrats should reject all Trump’s judges. Fallon argues that Republicans blocked President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees and that Democrats should take a page from their playbook. Like the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, Demand Justice uses ads to pressure Democratic senators on their voting records.
When the ad buy was announced, Coons spokesman Sean Coits rejected Demand Justice’s accusations.
“Senator Coons has opposed unqualified Trump nominees—both for judgeships and administration positions,” said Coits, “and has supported some whom he believes are qualified for their positions.”
The criticism isn’t deterring Fallon and Demand Justice, however.
“We plan to invest in Delaware a lot more heavily in the coming months, assuming Chris Coons continues voting for Trump judges,” Fallon said. “If that’s a record he’s proud of and feels like he can defend then he has nothing to worry about from our ads.”
Fallon was silent on social media Wednesday after the Politico report’s release. But he did retweet Demand Justice:
“We think that the idea of doing horse trading with this administration is not worth it,” Demand Justice executive director Brian Fallon told Politico Wednesday.
Fallon is under fire from Democratic senators who feel that Demand Justice’s September ad buy in Delaware targeting Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat, is over the line. Coons has supported a number of Trump nominees, including, Demand Justice said, some whose support of Brown v. Board of Education is in doubt.
“That was way out of line,” complained Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
But it’s in keeping with the group’s mission, as Politico explained:
Demand Justice’s message on judges is simple: Democrats should reject all Trump’s judges. Fallon argues that Republicans blocked President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees and that Democrats should take a page from their playbook. Like the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, Demand Justice uses ads to pressure Democratic senators on their voting records.
When the ad buy was announced, Coons spokesman Sean Coits rejected Demand Justice’s accusations.
“Senator Coons has opposed unqualified Trump nominees—both for judgeships and administration positions,” said Coits, “and has supported some whom he believes are qualified for their positions.”
The criticism isn’t deterring Fallon and Demand Justice, however.
“We plan to invest in Delaware a lot more heavily in the coming months, assuming Chris Coons continues voting for Trump judges,” Fallon said. “If that’s a record he’s proud of and feels like he can defend then he has nothing to worry about from our ads.”
Fallon was silent on social media Wednesday after the Politico report’s release. But he did retweet Demand Justice:
EXXON MOBIL IS FUNDING CENTRIST DEMOCRATIC THINK TANK, DISCLOSURES REVEAL
Kate Aronoff - the intercept
September 6 2019, 7:03 a.m.
THE PROGRESSIVE POLICY Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank that grew out of the party’s pro-business wing in the 1980s and ’90s, received $50,000 from Exxon Mobil in 2018 via its parent organization, the Third Way Foundation, according to the oil giant’s 2018 Worldwide Giving Report.
Exxon Mobil did not return The Intercept’s multiple requests for comment. In an email, PPI Executive Director Lindsay Lewis said the money was used for general support and that “we only accept general support funding from corporate interests, we do not do paid for work/research or have any donor run programs.”
Lewis also confirmed that this is the first time Exxon Mobil has donated to the Third Way Foundation.
Though it’s a first, PPI’s new donor isn’t so dramatic a shift from its fundraising record. The Intercept’s Akela Lacy has also found that PhRMA — the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America — has annually donated between $25,000 and $75,000 to the Third Way Foundation since 2009, upping its donation to $265,000 in 2016 — the same year that Medicare for All, which the trade group and PPI both oppose, entered the national spotlight. Donations dipped back to normal levels in 2017, although documents were not yet available for 2018 when the piece was published in late April.
In the last couple years, Exxon has taken up softer messaging on climate than either the Koch brothers or the Mercer family. With business all over the world, Exxon — like every other multinational oil company — is well-accustomed to operating in environments where denying the reality of the climate emergency outright is politically unthinkable. As climate concerns spike around the U.S., the company is still plenty opposed to environmental regulations and the lawsuits being lobbed its way from climate-vulnerable communities and attorneys general, who are each calling into question Exxon’s rule in fueling both the climate crisis and misinformation campaigns about it. Rather than paying people to say that there’s no problem at all, it can rebrand as a good-faith actor in the climate fight with paeans to carbon capture technology, low-carbon fuels (algae!), and carbon taxes that also conveniently exempt it from some of the lawsuits and regulations it’s most worried about. The decades of climate denial Exxon helped fund — and now the Trump administration — have dragged the national debate on climate change so far into the gutter that there are influentials liberals willing to give the company credit simply for not denying the science.
This all dovetails well with a centrist approach to climate politics that’s long sought common ground with industry and harbors both temperamental and ideological opposition to big, confrontational proposals like the Green New Deal. The upshot is that they’ve started to sound a lot alike. Carbon capture, R&D, and carbon pricing — while not mutually exclusive with the Green New Deal framework that the Sunrise Movement, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others have begun to flesh out — have reliably been wielded as a cudgel by establishment types against calls for more sweeping action.
Kert Davies, founder and director of the Climate Investigations Center, noted that the report indicates the money PPI received was through a “corporate” grant, rather than through the ExxonMobil Foundation. “We have never sussed how these two black boxes of money are managed or dolled out. So if you grab the ExxonMobil Foundation 990s, there are sometimes different descriptions or breakdowns of the funding, but this grant won’t be there,” he wrote in an email. “There is no need for public accounting of such grants. No obligation. But they have seemed compelled to disclosed them through the years.”
Of course, $50,000 is not an enormous amount of money either for PPI or Exxon Mobil. But it may well signal a shift in the fossil fuel industry’s relationship to climate politics.
For years, Exxon Mobil prolifically funded climate denier groups like the Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute. Under pressure, the company pledged to stop funding deniers in 2007, although it kept bankrolling politicians who deny the reality of the climate crisis. Exxon also still support right-wing think tanks like the Manhattan Institute, which received $970,200 from Exxon between 2008 and 2018. As recently as 2011, MI Senior Fellow Robert Bryce said “the science is not settled” on climate change. Another MI Senior Fellow, Oren Cass, last year — the year after three of the five most expensive hurricanes to have ever hit the Atlantic — authored a report arguing that the potential costs of climate change are overblown, suggesting that many people prefer warmer temperatures and could adapt easily to global warming. In addition to Exxon, MI is — like other flagrant denier groups — funded by the Mercer Family Foundation; Rebekah Mercer, a key financier of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, runs the foundation and sits on the MI board. Exxon also continues to give large donations the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and remains a member of the American Petroleum Institute, each of which has fought hard against environmental regulations and climate measures. The oil company only left the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council in 2017, four years after it pushed model legislation in Oklahoma, Colorado, and Arizona that described global warming as a “theory.”
Itai Vardi reported at DeSmog this summer that Phil Goldberg, director of PPI’s Center for Civil Justice, has come out swinging against climate lawsuits being brought by cities and states against fossil fuel companies. The law firm at which Goldberg is a partner — Shook, Hardy & Bacon — defended the tobacco industry for decades and was the inspiration for the fictional firm Smoot, Hawking in the 2005 film “Thank You For Smoking.” As a slew of lawsuits has begun to call into question fossil fuel companies’ role in fueling and spreading misinformation about the climate crisis, the industry has stepped into high gear to fight off litigation.
Goldberg is a former lobbyist for the coal company Peabody Energy who was brought on as special counsel by the National Association of Manufacturers in January as part of its Manufacturers Accountability Project, founded in 2017 to take on “activist litigation” against big oil companies; Exxon Mobil is a NAM member, and the MAP project has been among the most active bodies fighting off climate-related legal action. Both Peabody and NAM have also donated generously to climate denial groups over the years. Both, for instance, were members of the now-defunct Global Climate Coalition, which through the 1990s sought to undermine U.N. climate negotiations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Goldberg has also been an adviser for ALEC’s Civil Justice Task Force. In addition to the model legislation on global warming, ALEC has vigorously opposed climate and clean energy legislation around the country.
Lewis said that Goldberg works with PPI in a volunteer capacity and is not employed by the Third Way Foundation, despite his lofty title. Evidently, he’s vocally defending fossil fuel companies out of the goodness of his heart.
In March, Goldberg co-authored a report for the industry front group Grow America’s Infrastructure Now on how to bring legal action against anti-pipeline organizers. “Allowing vigilante regulation to go unchecked undermines our democracy. We honor civil protests in this country, but we should not have to accept improper efforts to overturn the rule of law,” Goldberg said in a press release. “People who violate the law by improperly interfering with legitimate business activities, even to advance a political or public policy preference, can be held accountable for their actions through civil litigation.” While not disclosed on the group’s website, GAIN spokesperson Craig Stevens is a partner at the DCI Group, which specializes in astroturf campaigns that have fought everything from anti-smoking laws to climate legislation. From 2005 through 2016, Exxon Mobil was a DCI client. In another detail not mentioned on the GAIN site, the group’s strategic adviser is James “Spider” Marks, who as of 2017 was the advisory board chair of the security firm TigerSwan, which — as The Intercept has documented extensively — engaged in “military-style counterterrorism measures” against anti-pipeline protesters.
Asked whether Goldberg’s positions on climate litigation were also PPI’s, Lewis replied, “PPI, which has long advocated for cap and trade, a carbon tax, and other polices to combat climate change, believes such policies should be made in representative legislatures, not the courts.” In short, yes.
Throughout the 2020 campaign cycle, PPI strategic adviser and Clinton White House insider Paul Bledsoe has commented frequently about the dangers of candidates being too hard on fossil fuels. “[Joe] Biden and other moderate candidates must emphasize that the market is already phasing out coal over time, but that their climate policies still allow a role for natural gas as a low-carbon transition fuel for some time,” he told the Washington Examiner in August. “This distinction is crucial to success in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.” In a New York Times piece about Biden’s critics on the left, Bledsoe said, “Indulging in ideological purity is great until you actually want to solve the problem.”
“Happily,” he wrote in a February Forbes op-ed attacking the Green New Deal, “there is no need to eliminate fossil fuels in the next decade or require only renewable energy or guarantee public sector jobs to meet our climate goals.” We might never find out what Exxon Mobil’s money got up to at PPI last year. If its experts keep sounding like Bledsoe and Goldberg, though, it’ll probably keep coming.
Exxon Mobil did not return The Intercept’s multiple requests for comment. In an email, PPI Executive Director Lindsay Lewis said the money was used for general support and that “we only accept general support funding from corporate interests, we do not do paid for work/research or have any donor run programs.”
Lewis also confirmed that this is the first time Exxon Mobil has donated to the Third Way Foundation.
Though it’s a first, PPI’s new donor isn’t so dramatic a shift from its fundraising record. The Intercept’s Akela Lacy has also found that PhRMA — the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America — has annually donated between $25,000 and $75,000 to the Third Way Foundation since 2009, upping its donation to $265,000 in 2016 — the same year that Medicare for All, which the trade group and PPI both oppose, entered the national spotlight. Donations dipped back to normal levels in 2017, although documents were not yet available for 2018 when the piece was published in late April.
In the last couple years, Exxon has taken up softer messaging on climate than either the Koch brothers or the Mercer family. With business all over the world, Exxon — like every other multinational oil company — is well-accustomed to operating in environments where denying the reality of the climate emergency outright is politically unthinkable. As climate concerns spike around the U.S., the company is still plenty opposed to environmental regulations and the lawsuits being lobbed its way from climate-vulnerable communities and attorneys general, who are each calling into question Exxon’s rule in fueling both the climate crisis and misinformation campaigns about it. Rather than paying people to say that there’s no problem at all, it can rebrand as a good-faith actor in the climate fight with paeans to carbon capture technology, low-carbon fuels (algae!), and carbon taxes that also conveniently exempt it from some of the lawsuits and regulations it’s most worried about. The decades of climate denial Exxon helped fund — and now the Trump administration — have dragged the national debate on climate change so far into the gutter that there are influentials liberals willing to give the company credit simply for not denying the science.
This all dovetails well with a centrist approach to climate politics that’s long sought common ground with industry and harbors both temperamental and ideological opposition to big, confrontational proposals like the Green New Deal. The upshot is that they’ve started to sound a lot alike. Carbon capture, R&D, and carbon pricing — while not mutually exclusive with the Green New Deal framework that the Sunrise Movement, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others have begun to flesh out — have reliably been wielded as a cudgel by establishment types against calls for more sweeping action.
Kert Davies, founder and director of the Climate Investigations Center, noted that the report indicates the money PPI received was through a “corporate” grant, rather than through the ExxonMobil Foundation. “We have never sussed how these two black boxes of money are managed or dolled out. So if you grab the ExxonMobil Foundation 990s, there are sometimes different descriptions or breakdowns of the funding, but this grant won’t be there,” he wrote in an email. “There is no need for public accounting of such grants. No obligation. But they have seemed compelled to disclosed them through the years.”
Of course, $50,000 is not an enormous amount of money either for PPI or Exxon Mobil. But it may well signal a shift in the fossil fuel industry’s relationship to climate politics.
For years, Exxon Mobil prolifically funded climate denier groups like the Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute. Under pressure, the company pledged to stop funding deniers in 2007, although it kept bankrolling politicians who deny the reality of the climate crisis. Exxon also still support right-wing think tanks like the Manhattan Institute, which received $970,200 from Exxon between 2008 and 2018. As recently as 2011, MI Senior Fellow Robert Bryce said “the science is not settled” on climate change. Another MI Senior Fellow, Oren Cass, last year — the year after three of the five most expensive hurricanes to have ever hit the Atlantic — authored a report arguing that the potential costs of climate change are overblown, suggesting that many people prefer warmer temperatures and could adapt easily to global warming. In addition to Exxon, MI is — like other flagrant denier groups — funded by the Mercer Family Foundation; Rebekah Mercer, a key financier of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, runs the foundation and sits on the MI board. Exxon also continues to give large donations the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and remains a member of the American Petroleum Institute, each of which has fought hard against environmental regulations and climate measures. The oil company only left the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council in 2017, four years after it pushed model legislation in Oklahoma, Colorado, and Arizona that described global warming as a “theory.”
Itai Vardi reported at DeSmog this summer that Phil Goldberg, director of PPI’s Center for Civil Justice, has come out swinging against climate lawsuits being brought by cities and states against fossil fuel companies. The law firm at which Goldberg is a partner — Shook, Hardy & Bacon — defended the tobacco industry for decades and was the inspiration for the fictional firm Smoot, Hawking in the 2005 film “Thank You For Smoking.” As a slew of lawsuits has begun to call into question fossil fuel companies’ role in fueling and spreading misinformation about the climate crisis, the industry has stepped into high gear to fight off litigation.
Goldberg is a former lobbyist for the coal company Peabody Energy who was brought on as special counsel by the National Association of Manufacturers in January as part of its Manufacturers Accountability Project, founded in 2017 to take on “activist litigation” against big oil companies; Exxon Mobil is a NAM member, and the MAP project has been among the most active bodies fighting off climate-related legal action. Both Peabody and NAM have also donated generously to climate denial groups over the years. Both, for instance, were members of the now-defunct Global Climate Coalition, which through the 1990s sought to undermine U.N. climate negotiations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Goldberg has also been an adviser for ALEC’s Civil Justice Task Force. In addition to the model legislation on global warming, ALEC has vigorously opposed climate and clean energy legislation around the country.
Lewis said that Goldberg works with PPI in a volunteer capacity and is not employed by the Third Way Foundation, despite his lofty title. Evidently, he’s vocally defending fossil fuel companies out of the goodness of his heart.
In March, Goldberg co-authored a report for the industry front group Grow America’s Infrastructure Now on how to bring legal action against anti-pipeline organizers. “Allowing vigilante regulation to go unchecked undermines our democracy. We honor civil protests in this country, but we should not have to accept improper efforts to overturn the rule of law,” Goldberg said in a press release. “People who violate the law by improperly interfering with legitimate business activities, even to advance a political or public policy preference, can be held accountable for their actions through civil litigation.” While not disclosed on the group’s website, GAIN spokesperson Craig Stevens is a partner at the DCI Group, which specializes in astroturf campaigns that have fought everything from anti-smoking laws to climate legislation. From 2005 through 2016, Exxon Mobil was a DCI client. In another detail not mentioned on the GAIN site, the group’s strategic adviser is James “Spider” Marks, who as of 2017 was the advisory board chair of the security firm TigerSwan, which — as The Intercept has documented extensively — engaged in “military-style counterterrorism measures” against anti-pipeline protesters.
Asked whether Goldberg’s positions on climate litigation were also PPI’s, Lewis replied, “PPI, which has long advocated for cap and trade, a carbon tax, and other polices to combat climate change, believes such policies should be made in representative legislatures, not the courts.” In short, yes.
Throughout the 2020 campaign cycle, PPI strategic adviser and Clinton White House insider Paul Bledsoe has commented frequently about the dangers of candidates being too hard on fossil fuels. “[Joe] Biden and other moderate candidates must emphasize that the market is already phasing out coal over time, but that their climate policies still allow a role for natural gas as a low-carbon transition fuel for some time,” he told the Washington Examiner in August. “This distinction is crucial to success in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.” In a New York Times piece about Biden’s critics on the left, Bledsoe said, “Indulging in ideological purity is great until you actually want to solve the problem.”
“Happily,” he wrote in a February Forbes op-ed attacking the Green New Deal, “there is no need to eliminate fossil fuels in the next decade or require only renewable energy or guarantee public sector jobs to meet our climate goals.” We might never find out what Exxon Mobil’s money got up to at PPI last year. If its experts keep sounding like Bledsoe and Goldberg, though, it’ll probably keep coming.
Why Is a Freshman Democrat Attacking Progressives in a Washington Post Series?
BY William Rivers Pitt, Truthout
PUBLISHED August 21, 2019
The manner in which the establishment press will rally to the cause of conservative Democrats whenever progressive ideas gain traction has been well documented in this space. The sun rose on Tuesday morning to shine down on yet another example of the practice, this time in the guise of a Washington Post puff piece about Virginia Rep. Abigail Spanberger … except it wasn’t so much a puff piece as a frontal assault on the progressive wing of the House Democratic caucus.
Rep. Spanberger, who defeated Republican Dave Brat in 2018, is one of the cluster of newly elected, “centrist” Democrats Speaker Nancy Pelosi protects and cherishes as her key to holding the majority in 2020. While progressives everywhere were pleased at the prospect of Brat no longer polluting the House chamber, his replacement is suddenly proving to be a muddle of strangeness whose motive for actively participating in a brazen hit piece against fellow Democrats remains opaque.
Spanberger’s record is undeniably left of many of the red-state “Blue Dog” Democrats who came into the 116th Congress with her last November, who prefer the term “moderate” because “conservative” is bad for the brand. She has voted “Yes” on almost every bill put forward by the House during this session, many of which were important pieces of progressive legislation.
More than that, Spanberger has personally co-sponsored legislation to denounce Trump, address climate change, fully fund care for 9/11 rescue workers, enhance background checks for gun purchases, and in defense of transgender members of the military. Her only “No” vote to date was cast against the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, joining progressive “Squad” Reps. Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley in their opposition.
However, some of her “Yes” votes were deeply troubling. Spanberger’s conservative colors were revealed when she co-sponsored legislation condemning activism against Israel’s ongoing occupation of the West Bank and for Palestinian human rights.
And then there’s the issue of immigration. A review of the Post piece reveals that the bruises Spanberger absorbed after a “Yes” vote — in favor of the Trump-favored Republican border funding bill — remain fresh.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and a number of progressive House members vigorously opposed the bill because it kept open concentration camps housing separated children, and put no restrictions on how Donald Trump could spend the appropriated funds.
For a time, it appeared a progressive version of that border funding legislation might see the light of day, which would have put Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his caucus in a challenging spot.
Ultimately, however, the bill was thoroughly bungled by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi angrily bowed to the inevitable. For AOC and her fellow progressives, it was a stinging act of political cowardice compounded by flagrant ineptitude, and their reaction was both swift and caustic.
Spanberger, it seems, did not enjoy becoming the subject of their ire after that calamity of a bill passed with her help. Nearly two months later, her bitterness has not subsided. “That week,” she is quoted in the article as saying, “showed me that for some people, ideology matters more than putting food in the mouth of a child.”
Got that, everyone? Spanberger says progressives don’t want to feed children. Pretty subtle stuff. Next week: Progressives want to destroy the sun.
It gets weirder from there. The Post article obliquely notes how “most people knew” Spanberger was once an undercover CIA operative, skipping the part about how she had to get portions of her Agency record declassified in order to run for Congress. When pressed for details on her CIA career before last year’s midterms, Spanberger had few to offer. “I talk in broad brush terms about what it is that I did,” she told ABC News, “because that’s all I am permitted to do.”
For the record, I was not among the “most” who knew of Spanberger’s CIA past. I did not know that it was her love of languages that compelled her to specifically apply for work at the CIA. I do, however, know the CIA has been actively craving linguistics experts since the inception of the so-called war on terror. One can only imagine where Spanberger’s talents took her in her eight and a half years with the Agency during that torture-riddled affair. One thing is certain: She’s not telling.
Spanberger was more than happy to explain to the Post why her years spent working for “the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service” give her credibility when it comes to voting with Republicans on immigration issues and attacking progressives for failing to do the same.
While an official for the Postal Inspection Service, Spanberger worked primarily on drug and money laundering cases. As the only Spanish speaker during many of the arrests she was involved with, she was “the one dealing with crying children, telling them that we were taking their Daddy away,” she told the Post. “I was the one talking to a crying wife, saying why we were arresting her spouse.”
The Post explains that Spanberger “wanted her [House] colleagues to know she had experience easing children through difficult moments and was trying to act in their best interest.” Apparently, in order to properly contextualize votes that keep concentration camps open and funded, one must be able to think like an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent. Thinking like an ICE agent also probably helps when you’re slagging House progressives in the D.C. paper of record.
“Spanberger visited the border with a bipartisan group, a trip that confirmed her position that the situation can improve only by addressing the root of the problem,” reports the Post. “For example, she favors adding more immigration judges to eliminate the backlog of migrants seeking asylum.”
Kudos to her for visiting the border (Speaker Pelosi finally got around to it a bit over a week ago). That being said, one might strenuously argue that addressing “the root of the problem” has more to do with reforming U.S. policy in Central and South America than it does with appointing additional judges to put additional people into detention centers for the crime of fleeing the consequences of U.S. policy.
The article concludes with “almost everyone” applauding Spanberger at a Virginia town hall event after she told the assemblage she was against impeaching Trump. “Congress has the role of asking questions because we should want to get to the bottom of things,” she told a constituent, quoting the Pelosi line on impeachment to the note.
House progressives have shown promising strength and vitality since the 2018 midterms, yet political reality is a subtle thing, and Pelosi’s arithmetic regarding 2020 is not entirely off base. In order to maintain majority control of the House, conservative Democrats from conservative states must be endured to a certain degree. Expecting deep-red districts to elect and then re-elect a bunch of AOC clones is not reasonable at this juncture, and so space must be made for conservative House Democrats to be who and what the voters who put them there want.
This does not explain why Rep. Spanberger chose to be the starring figure in a Washington Post hit piece on progressives regarding immigration, especially after compiling a mostly-progressive voting record that would stand up to scrutiny in many of the bluest districts in the land. Highlighting her CIA and law enforcement past while insinuating that progressives hate feeding children would seem to suggest her voting record is set to take a hard right turn. Bitterness, after all, leaves a lingering aftertaste.
My request to Rep. Spanberger’s press office for comment on her participation in the Post article received no reply, but that’s fine, we’ll be hearing more in the coming months. The last line of the piece reads, “This is part of an occasional series of stories about Rep. Abigail Spanberger’s first year in office.” Clearly, the Post is more than happy to help a Democrat attack House progressives, and Spanberger probably digs the ink she gets by serving as that paper’s willing accomplice. Just another day in politics.
Rep. Spanberger, who defeated Republican Dave Brat in 2018, is one of the cluster of newly elected, “centrist” Democrats Speaker Nancy Pelosi protects and cherishes as her key to holding the majority in 2020. While progressives everywhere were pleased at the prospect of Brat no longer polluting the House chamber, his replacement is suddenly proving to be a muddle of strangeness whose motive for actively participating in a brazen hit piece against fellow Democrats remains opaque.
Spanberger’s record is undeniably left of many of the red-state “Blue Dog” Democrats who came into the 116th Congress with her last November, who prefer the term “moderate” because “conservative” is bad for the brand. She has voted “Yes” on almost every bill put forward by the House during this session, many of which were important pieces of progressive legislation.
More than that, Spanberger has personally co-sponsored legislation to denounce Trump, address climate change, fully fund care for 9/11 rescue workers, enhance background checks for gun purchases, and in defense of transgender members of the military. Her only “No” vote to date was cast against the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, joining progressive “Squad” Reps. Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley in their opposition.
However, some of her “Yes” votes were deeply troubling. Spanberger’s conservative colors were revealed when she co-sponsored legislation condemning activism against Israel’s ongoing occupation of the West Bank and for Palestinian human rights.
And then there’s the issue of immigration. A review of the Post piece reveals that the bruises Spanberger absorbed after a “Yes” vote — in favor of the Trump-favored Republican border funding bill — remain fresh.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and a number of progressive House members vigorously opposed the bill because it kept open concentration camps housing separated children, and put no restrictions on how Donald Trump could spend the appropriated funds.
For a time, it appeared a progressive version of that border funding legislation might see the light of day, which would have put Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his caucus in a challenging spot.
Ultimately, however, the bill was thoroughly bungled by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi angrily bowed to the inevitable. For AOC and her fellow progressives, it was a stinging act of political cowardice compounded by flagrant ineptitude, and their reaction was both swift and caustic.
Spanberger, it seems, did not enjoy becoming the subject of their ire after that calamity of a bill passed with her help. Nearly two months later, her bitterness has not subsided. “That week,” she is quoted in the article as saying, “showed me that for some people, ideology matters more than putting food in the mouth of a child.”
Got that, everyone? Spanberger says progressives don’t want to feed children. Pretty subtle stuff. Next week: Progressives want to destroy the sun.
It gets weirder from there. The Post article obliquely notes how “most people knew” Spanberger was once an undercover CIA operative, skipping the part about how she had to get portions of her Agency record declassified in order to run for Congress. When pressed for details on her CIA career before last year’s midterms, Spanberger had few to offer. “I talk in broad brush terms about what it is that I did,” she told ABC News, “because that’s all I am permitted to do.”
For the record, I was not among the “most” who knew of Spanberger’s CIA past. I did not know that it was her love of languages that compelled her to specifically apply for work at the CIA. I do, however, know the CIA has been actively craving linguistics experts since the inception of the so-called war on terror. One can only imagine where Spanberger’s talents took her in her eight and a half years with the Agency during that torture-riddled affair. One thing is certain: She’s not telling.
Spanberger was more than happy to explain to the Post why her years spent working for “the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service” give her credibility when it comes to voting with Republicans on immigration issues and attacking progressives for failing to do the same.
While an official for the Postal Inspection Service, Spanberger worked primarily on drug and money laundering cases. As the only Spanish speaker during many of the arrests she was involved with, she was “the one dealing with crying children, telling them that we were taking their Daddy away,” she told the Post. “I was the one talking to a crying wife, saying why we were arresting her spouse.”
The Post explains that Spanberger “wanted her [House] colleagues to know she had experience easing children through difficult moments and was trying to act in their best interest.” Apparently, in order to properly contextualize votes that keep concentration camps open and funded, one must be able to think like an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent. Thinking like an ICE agent also probably helps when you’re slagging House progressives in the D.C. paper of record.
“Spanberger visited the border with a bipartisan group, a trip that confirmed her position that the situation can improve only by addressing the root of the problem,” reports the Post. “For example, she favors adding more immigration judges to eliminate the backlog of migrants seeking asylum.”
Kudos to her for visiting the border (Speaker Pelosi finally got around to it a bit over a week ago). That being said, one might strenuously argue that addressing “the root of the problem” has more to do with reforming U.S. policy in Central and South America than it does with appointing additional judges to put additional people into detention centers for the crime of fleeing the consequences of U.S. policy.
The article concludes with “almost everyone” applauding Spanberger at a Virginia town hall event after she told the assemblage she was against impeaching Trump. “Congress has the role of asking questions because we should want to get to the bottom of things,” she told a constituent, quoting the Pelosi line on impeachment to the note.
House progressives have shown promising strength and vitality since the 2018 midterms, yet political reality is a subtle thing, and Pelosi’s arithmetic regarding 2020 is not entirely off base. In order to maintain majority control of the House, conservative Democrats from conservative states must be endured to a certain degree. Expecting deep-red districts to elect and then re-elect a bunch of AOC clones is not reasonable at this juncture, and so space must be made for conservative House Democrats to be who and what the voters who put them there want.
This does not explain why Rep. Spanberger chose to be the starring figure in a Washington Post hit piece on progressives regarding immigration, especially after compiling a mostly-progressive voting record that would stand up to scrutiny in many of the bluest districts in the land. Highlighting her CIA and law enforcement past while insinuating that progressives hate feeding children would seem to suggest her voting record is set to take a hard right turn. Bitterness, after all, leaves a lingering aftertaste.
My request to Rep. Spanberger’s press office for comment on her participation in the Post article received no reply, but that’s fine, we’ll be hearing more in the coming months. The last line of the piece reads, “This is part of an occasional series of stories about Rep. Abigail Spanberger’s first year in office.” Clearly, the Post is more than happy to help a Democrat attack House progressives, and Spanberger probably digs the ink she gets by serving as that paper’s willing accomplice. Just another day in politics.
THE KOCHS FUNDED THIRD WAY TO PUSH FREE TRADE TO DEMOCRATS, NEW BOOK SAYS
Ryan Grim, Andrew Perez - The Intercept
August 13 2019, 3:00 a.m.
IN THE FALL OF 2007, the tide was beginning to turn against free trade, as the ongoing hollowing out of the American middle class was becoming associated with globalization and the offshoring of jobs. Its leading public opponent was the bombastic CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, a proto-Trump whose economic nationalism curdled easily into racism and nativism. Many Democrats, too, were turning sour on free trade. Then-President George W. Bush relied on Republican votes to ram through the Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2005, but future deals were looking far from certain, particularly after Democrats seized control of Congress in the 2006 midterms.
This was a direct threat to Koch Industries, the sprawling business empire long led by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. The fossil-fuel giant’s business has long been based on importing oil from Canadian tar sands, which it refines at its massive Pine Bend plant in Minnesota — and the opposition to free trade threatened to make that business much more costly. The Kochs desperately needed help with Democrats, so they turned to a reliable partner: Third Way.
According to the new book “Kochland,” written by investigative reporter Christopher Leonard, Koch Industries secretly financed a report by Third Way, a corporate-funded think tank with ties to the centrist wing of the Democratic Party. The report, titled “Why Lou Dobbs is Winning” and published in November 2007, was written to promote the free trade agenda to liberals. The white paper explained it would be the first salvo in a yearlong effort to reshape the messaging around trade policy, warning that “a new and powerful populist strain has emerged on both the left and the right of American politics that threatens to turn the nation fearful and inward.”
Third Way and Koch Industries did not respond to requests for comment.
While Third Way’s report did not note any funding from Koch Industries or any related companies or organizations, it did offer thanks to Rob Hall, then a lobbyist for Koch Industries’ Invista division, “for his support in helping us conceive of and design Third Way’s trade project,” adding credence to Leonard’s claim that the Kochs were behind the effort. Hall was previously a Koch executive. The report also added: “The authors offer their sincerest thanks to Third Way’s Board of Trustees for their continuing intellectual support of Third Way and in particular for providing several of the key initial insights on which this paper is built.” Third Way’s board of trustees is a who’s who of Wall Street and corporate elites.
It may seem odd to see the Koch brothers, who operate today as partisan Republicans, aligning with business-friendly Democrats, but the strategy dates back further. A 2001 American Prospect investigation noted that Koch Industries was a member of the executive council of the Democratic Leadership Council, founded in 1985 by centrist Democrats to combat the left inside the party. Hall, thanked in the report, was a member of the DLC’s event committee at the time.
The paper argues that “neopopulists” like Dobbs were on the rise because Americans didn’t have faith in arguments made by free traders. Polls showed that people believed that “open trade,” as Third Way dubbed it, cost jobs, only benefited major corporations, made the U.S. weaker globally, and that trade barriers and tariffs were good policies that protected jobs. The argument on behalf of free trade, the report said, hadn’t taken into account the struggles of the middle class. “Our policies” — in favor of free trade — “do nothing to restore middle-class confidence in the future,” the report noted correctly. “Middle-class economic anxiety is widespread and legitimate. And fairly or not, much of the blame for this anxiety is landing squarely on trade.”
Of course, as Leonard notes in his book, there is good reason for public skepticism about free trade deals. “Such trade policies were under attack in 2007 because they did not deliver the economic benefits that they had promised to huge swaths of the American population,” he writes. “The textile industry of South Carolina, for example, was decimated by trade agreements, such as NAFTA,” the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The Third Way report was rolled out in coordination with then-Rep. Joe Crowley, a Democrat representing the Bronx and Queens, and then-Rep. Melissa Bean of Chicago. Both were leading figures in the party’s pro-business wing. “We all have to begin to speak differently about trade, how it benefits the economy and foreign policy, how it helps Americans and people abroad,” Crowley said in a 2007 Politico article.
The report, which was part of a broader push by Third Way and others to sell free trade policies to Democratic politicians, laid out a series of prescriptions to reframe the debate, and not a moment too soon. The global economic crisis that struck in 2008, which was met with austerity policies around the world, took whatever fuel there was behind the populist movement and lit it on fire.
The Obama administration embraced free trade, making the enactment of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership a cornerstone of its global trade policy that was widely opposed on the left and right. Donald Trump made opposition to free trade a central component of his campaign and rode to the White House over the objections of the Koch brothers. He immediately pulled out of the TPP negotiations and has made opposition to free trade a central component of his presidency. The leading progressive Democratic candidates for president, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, both opposed the free trade agreement.
After losing a primary to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Crowley is now employed by a lobbying firm and working to pass Trump’s renegotiated NAFTA. Bean recently left JPMorgan Chase to become CEO of Mesirow Wealth Advisors.
Third Way has consistently warned against the rise of populism on the left. In 2013, the group attacked Warren, warning she would take the party off a “populist cliff.” Third Way now claims to have come to terms with Warren and contends there’s a greater threat from Sanders’ brand of democratic socialism.
This was a direct threat to Koch Industries, the sprawling business empire long led by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. The fossil-fuel giant’s business has long been based on importing oil from Canadian tar sands, which it refines at its massive Pine Bend plant in Minnesota — and the opposition to free trade threatened to make that business much more costly. The Kochs desperately needed help with Democrats, so they turned to a reliable partner: Third Way.
According to the new book “Kochland,” written by investigative reporter Christopher Leonard, Koch Industries secretly financed a report by Third Way, a corporate-funded think tank with ties to the centrist wing of the Democratic Party. The report, titled “Why Lou Dobbs is Winning” and published in November 2007, was written to promote the free trade agenda to liberals. The white paper explained it would be the first salvo in a yearlong effort to reshape the messaging around trade policy, warning that “a new and powerful populist strain has emerged on both the left and the right of American politics that threatens to turn the nation fearful and inward.”
Third Way and Koch Industries did not respond to requests for comment.
While Third Way’s report did not note any funding from Koch Industries or any related companies or organizations, it did offer thanks to Rob Hall, then a lobbyist for Koch Industries’ Invista division, “for his support in helping us conceive of and design Third Way’s trade project,” adding credence to Leonard’s claim that the Kochs were behind the effort. Hall was previously a Koch executive. The report also added: “The authors offer their sincerest thanks to Third Way’s Board of Trustees for their continuing intellectual support of Third Way and in particular for providing several of the key initial insights on which this paper is built.” Third Way’s board of trustees is a who’s who of Wall Street and corporate elites.
It may seem odd to see the Koch brothers, who operate today as partisan Republicans, aligning with business-friendly Democrats, but the strategy dates back further. A 2001 American Prospect investigation noted that Koch Industries was a member of the executive council of the Democratic Leadership Council, founded in 1985 by centrist Democrats to combat the left inside the party. Hall, thanked in the report, was a member of the DLC’s event committee at the time.
The paper argues that “neopopulists” like Dobbs were on the rise because Americans didn’t have faith in arguments made by free traders. Polls showed that people believed that “open trade,” as Third Way dubbed it, cost jobs, only benefited major corporations, made the U.S. weaker globally, and that trade barriers and tariffs were good policies that protected jobs. The argument on behalf of free trade, the report said, hadn’t taken into account the struggles of the middle class. “Our policies” — in favor of free trade — “do nothing to restore middle-class confidence in the future,” the report noted correctly. “Middle-class economic anxiety is widespread and legitimate. And fairly or not, much of the blame for this anxiety is landing squarely on trade.”
Of course, as Leonard notes in his book, there is good reason for public skepticism about free trade deals. “Such trade policies were under attack in 2007 because they did not deliver the economic benefits that they had promised to huge swaths of the American population,” he writes. “The textile industry of South Carolina, for example, was decimated by trade agreements, such as NAFTA,” the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The Third Way report was rolled out in coordination with then-Rep. Joe Crowley, a Democrat representing the Bronx and Queens, and then-Rep. Melissa Bean of Chicago. Both were leading figures in the party’s pro-business wing. “We all have to begin to speak differently about trade, how it benefits the economy and foreign policy, how it helps Americans and people abroad,” Crowley said in a 2007 Politico article.
The report, which was part of a broader push by Third Way and others to sell free trade policies to Democratic politicians, laid out a series of prescriptions to reframe the debate, and not a moment too soon. The global economic crisis that struck in 2008, which was met with austerity policies around the world, took whatever fuel there was behind the populist movement and lit it on fire.
The Obama administration embraced free trade, making the enactment of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership a cornerstone of its global trade policy that was widely opposed on the left and right. Donald Trump made opposition to free trade a central component of his campaign and rode to the White House over the objections of the Koch brothers. He immediately pulled out of the TPP negotiations and has made opposition to free trade a central component of his presidency. The leading progressive Democratic candidates for president, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, both opposed the free trade agreement.
After losing a primary to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Crowley is now employed by a lobbying firm and working to pass Trump’s renegotiated NAFTA. Bean recently left JPMorgan Chase to become CEO of Mesirow Wealth Advisors.
Third Way has consistently warned against the rise of populism on the left. In 2013, the group attacked Warren, warning she would take the party off a “populist cliff.” Third Way now claims to have come to terms with Warren and contends there’s a greater threat from Sanders’ brand of democratic socialism.
Find the Common Ground They Say, Heh...
Soph0571 - demo underground
go to hell, moderates!!!
Maxine Waters Puts Corporate Democrats to Shame
Julia Conley / Common Dreams - Truthdig
8/9/19
Rep. Maxine Waters won praise Friday from critics of the cash-for-access U.S. political system amid reports that some Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee are frustrated at her refusal to raise money from the industry she regulates.
Politico reported that Democrats on the committee have been disappointed with Waters’s decision to focus on consumer protection legislation and Wall Street oversight—the stated purpose of the panel—rather than raising money at fundraisers and through direct contributions from wealthy banks and then doling out that cash to her fellow lawmakers.
otarell 'wilding'✔
@octarell
Because she ‘has focused the committee's agenda on consumer protection and Wall Street oversight’ exactly what she said she would do— Democrats complain Waters is slow to spread Wall Street wealth - POLITICO https://apple.news/A92bmUEtVQlez0JluKecrog …
At least one critic on social media wondered why the news outlet highlighted the Democrats’ displeasure instead of questioning why “Members of Congress [expect] to raise money from those they’re there to regulate.”
“D.C. is sick,” added Jack Mirkinson, deputy editor of Splinter News.
Jack Mirkinson✔
@jackmirkinson
Maxine Waters is apparently prioritizing consumer protection over raking in Wall Street cash…so of course Democrats on her committee are complaining. DC is sick https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/09/maxine-waters-fundraising-1632379 …
While the top Republican on the panel, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), has raised nearly $160,000 for his members, Waters has distributed just $10,000 to Democrats.
But the 15-term California Democrat told the outlet that the lack of funds being distributed throughout the committee’s ranks is deliberate.
“This committee is no longer simply a ‘juice committee,'” Waters told Politico.
Other House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) chairs have spent significant time and energy on raising money for upcoming elections to give their members a better chance of retaining their seats.
Although Waters still accepts corporate PAC money, she argued that working in the interest of voters is primarily what will help representatives to win their elections in 2020—not amassing funds from Wall Street interests who are used to contributing to lawmakers and being treated favorably in Washington in return.
“Waters said her primary focus during the first months of this year has been on organizing the panel and building a record of legislative accomplishments, including those that members can bring home to their districts,” Zachary Warmbrodt reported in Politico.
Under Waters’s leadership, the HFSC has held hearings on the persistent housing crisis in Michigan, state efforts to oversee student loan service companies, and the abuses of the payday loan industry.
The committee has also recently passed bills to make the federal Bank Secrecy/Anti-Money Laundering framework more transparent and efficient and to provide insurance discounts for first-time home buyers.
“We must never lose sight of why we were elected to office,” Waters told Politico. “We were all elected to office to address the public policy needs of our constituents.”
One social media user expressed hope that other committee leaders in Washington would take the same approach to their powerful positions.
Politico reported that Democrats on the committee have been disappointed with Waters’s decision to focus on consumer protection legislation and Wall Street oversight—the stated purpose of the panel—rather than raising money at fundraisers and through direct contributions from wealthy banks and then doling out that cash to her fellow lawmakers.
otarell 'wilding'✔
@octarell
Because she ‘has focused the committee's agenda on consumer protection and Wall Street oversight’ exactly what she said she would do— Democrats complain Waters is slow to spread Wall Street wealth - POLITICO https://apple.news/A92bmUEtVQlez0JluKecrog …
At least one critic on social media wondered why the news outlet highlighted the Democrats’ displeasure instead of questioning why “Members of Congress [expect] to raise money from those they’re there to regulate.”
“D.C. is sick,” added Jack Mirkinson, deputy editor of Splinter News.
Jack Mirkinson✔
@jackmirkinson
Maxine Waters is apparently prioritizing consumer protection over raking in Wall Street cash…so of course Democrats on her committee are complaining. DC is sick https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/09/maxine-waters-fundraising-1632379 …
While the top Republican on the panel, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), has raised nearly $160,000 for his members, Waters has distributed just $10,000 to Democrats.
But the 15-term California Democrat told the outlet that the lack of funds being distributed throughout the committee’s ranks is deliberate.
“This committee is no longer simply a ‘juice committee,'” Waters told Politico.
Other House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) chairs have spent significant time and energy on raising money for upcoming elections to give their members a better chance of retaining their seats.
Although Waters still accepts corporate PAC money, she argued that working in the interest of voters is primarily what will help representatives to win their elections in 2020—not amassing funds from Wall Street interests who are used to contributing to lawmakers and being treated favorably in Washington in return.
“Waters said her primary focus during the first months of this year has been on organizing the panel and building a record of legislative accomplishments, including those that members can bring home to their districts,” Zachary Warmbrodt reported in Politico.
Under Waters’s leadership, the HFSC has held hearings on the persistent housing crisis in Michigan, state efforts to oversee student loan service companies, and the abuses of the payday loan industry.
The committee has also recently passed bills to make the federal Bank Secrecy/Anti-Money Laundering framework more transparent and efficient and to provide insurance discounts for first-time home buyers.
“We must never lose sight of why we were elected to office,” Waters told Politico. “We were all elected to office to address the public policy needs of our constituents.”
One social media user expressed hope that other committee leaders in Washington would take the same approach to their powerful positions.
Union leaders rebuke centrist Democrats for claiming Medicare for All would harm workers
August 3, 2019
By Jake Johnson, Common Dreams - Raw Story
“Medicare for All would put money back into union members’ pockets in the form of wages and other benefits. That’s why major unions representing millions of workers in the U.S. are in this fight.”
Leaders of some of America’s largest labor unions are speaking out against centrist Democratic presidential candidates who, in an effort to undercut Medicare for All, are pitting unionized workers against millions of uninsured Americans.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), and former Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) have each argued in recent days that Medicare for All would undo the hard-won collective bargaining gains of unions by replacing employer-sponsored health insurance with a single-payer program.
“I really resent the 16 million workers who joined together and bargained for better health plans being pitted against millions of Americans struggling to get healthcare coverage.”
—Mary Kay Henry, Service Employees International Union
As Common Dreams reported last month, the Biden campaign released an ad featuring a retired union worker named Marcy, who said she “earned” her private insurance and wants to keep it.
Ryan and Delaney echoed the message of Biden’s ad during the Democratic presidential debate in Detroit on Wednesday, accusing Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) of throwing union workers under the bus by backing Medicare for All.
“We have all our union friends here tonight,” said Ryan. “This plan that’s being offered by Senator Warren and Senator Sanders will tell those union members who gave away wages in order to get good healthcare that they’re going to lose their healthcare because Washington’s going to come in and tell them they got a better plan.”
HuffPost labor reporter Dave Jamieson said Service Employees International Union (SEIU) president Mary Kay Henry seemed “genuinely angered” when asked about the argument that Medicare for All would hurt union workers.
“I think it’s a false choice,” said Henry, “and I really resent the 16 million workers who joined together and bargained for better health plans being pitted against millions of Americans struggling to get healthcare coverage.”
Henry was not alone.
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, told Vox that she found Ryan’s argument “offensive.”
“It is real that there is work to do with unions,” Nelson said. “People do love their contractural plans. But not every union contract today has exemplary healthcare.”
Democratic opponents of Medicare for All neglected to mention the fact that National Nurses United (NNU), America’s largest nurses union, is leading the grassroots organizing for single-payer across the country.
NNU tweeted during the Democratic presidential debate Tuesday night that “Medicare for All would put money back into union members’ pockets in the form of wages and other benefits.”
“That’s why major unions representing millions of workers in the U.S. are in this fight,” said NNU.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who herself has voiced frustration with fellow Democrats’ misleading attacks on Medicare for All, thanked union leaders for “pushing back on these falsehoods” in a tweet on Thursday.
While some prominent unions--most recently the International Association of Fire Fighters, which endorsed Biden for president—have expressed opposition to Medicare for All, more than 20 unions representing over 10 million workers have endorsed Jayapal’s Medicare for All legislation, including the American Federation of Teachers, the United Automobile Workers, and the United Mine Workers of America.
“We have an unprecedented labor coalition supporting [Medicare for All],” Jayapal said, “because soaring healthcare costs are directly tied to stagnating wages and hurt workers at the bargaining table.
Leaders of some of America’s largest labor unions are speaking out against centrist Democratic presidential candidates who, in an effort to undercut Medicare for All, are pitting unionized workers against millions of uninsured Americans.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), and former Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) have each argued in recent days that Medicare for All would undo the hard-won collective bargaining gains of unions by replacing employer-sponsored health insurance with a single-payer program.
“I really resent the 16 million workers who joined together and bargained for better health plans being pitted against millions of Americans struggling to get healthcare coverage.”
—Mary Kay Henry, Service Employees International Union
As Common Dreams reported last month, the Biden campaign released an ad featuring a retired union worker named Marcy, who said she “earned” her private insurance and wants to keep it.
Ryan and Delaney echoed the message of Biden’s ad during the Democratic presidential debate in Detroit on Wednesday, accusing Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) of throwing union workers under the bus by backing Medicare for All.
“We have all our union friends here tonight,” said Ryan. “This plan that’s being offered by Senator Warren and Senator Sanders will tell those union members who gave away wages in order to get good healthcare that they’re going to lose their healthcare because Washington’s going to come in and tell them they got a better plan.”
HuffPost labor reporter Dave Jamieson said Service Employees International Union (SEIU) president Mary Kay Henry seemed “genuinely angered” when asked about the argument that Medicare for All would hurt union workers.
“I think it’s a false choice,” said Henry, “and I really resent the 16 million workers who joined together and bargained for better health plans being pitted against millions of Americans struggling to get healthcare coverage.”
Henry was not alone.
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, told Vox that she found Ryan’s argument “offensive.”
“It is real that there is work to do with unions,” Nelson said. “People do love their contractural plans. But not every union contract today has exemplary healthcare.”
Democratic opponents of Medicare for All neglected to mention the fact that National Nurses United (NNU), America’s largest nurses union, is leading the grassroots organizing for single-payer across the country.
NNU tweeted during the Democratic presidential debate Tuesday night that “Medicare for All would put money back into union members’ pockets in the form of wages and other benefits.”
“That’s why major unions representing millions of workers in the U.S. are in this fight,” said NNU.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who herself has voiced frustration with fellow Democrats’ misleading attacks on Medicare for All, thanked union leaders for “pushing back on these falsehoods” in a tweet on Thursday.
While some prominent unions--most recently the International Association of Fire Fighters, which endorsed Biden for president—have expressed opposition to Medicare for All, more than 20 unions representing over 10 million workers have endorsed Jayapal’s Medicare for All legislation, including the American Federation of Teachers, the United Automobile Workers, and the United Mine Workers of America.
“We have an unprecedented labor coalition supporting [Medicare for All],” Jayapal said, “because soaring healthcare costs are directly tied to stagnating wages and hurt workers at the bargaining table.
op - ed: “Moderate” Democrats Are Really Conservatives — and They Are Dangerous
BY
William Rivers Pitt, Truthout
PUBLISHED
March 5, 2019
If I hear the word “moderate” used one more time to describe Blue Dog House Democrats who keep voting with Republicans, or any other non-Republican who actively supports today’s Republican Party, it is entirely possible I will eat my teeth. The term “Blue Dog” is a metaphor for a dog straining so hard on its leash that it has turned blue from lack of oxygen; the dog is a right-leaning Democrat, and the leash represents its tenuous party affiliation. These people are conservatives — period, end of file — who hide behind the “moderate” label even as they undermine policies Democrats have hewed to for half a century.
They are able to do this, thanks in no small part to the committed care and feeding of big-paper/big-network reporters, editorialists and producers, many of whom haven’t entertained a new idea since Windows 3.1 was the hot new thing. A recent spirited meeting of House Democrats gave these media types yet another chance to strut their fogbound stuff even as they gave cover to their “moderate” friends who, if you believe the mainstream stenographers out there, have it all figured out.
Their fallback tactic is ease: Inaccurate labeling stands in substitution for analysis because it is easier, tropes outmatch facts because they are easier, and lies from “important people” are not simply allowed to stand, but to flourish. Why? Because it is easier.
“House Democrats exploded in recriminations Thursday over moderates bucking the party, with liberal Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatening to put those voting with Republicans ‘on a list’ for a primary challenge,” reads the opening line of last week’s febrific Washington Post article on the Democrats’ meeting, only the most recent example of the practice.
There are 137 words in the first four paragraphs of that thoroughly frantic report, a bunch of which clearly strive to become lit sticks of dynamite in the next life. Exploded! Moderates bucking the party! Threatening! On a list! Primary challenge! Frustrated! Lashed out! Pressured! Unquestioned media superstar! Upped the ante! Admonishing! Liberal activists! Unseat! On a list, again! Would that I had pearls to clutch.
“Unquestioned media superstar” takes the biscuit in paragraph three, however. The term refers to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez while simultaneously dismissing her intelligence, skills, passion, wit, will and political savvy by turning her into another bit of TV fluff that will only be popular until the next big hot-minute celebrity comes along. She is bigger than that by many long miles, and those who can’t or won’t acknowledge that are setting themselves up for one hell of a surprise.
What was this House Democrats’ meeting about, anyway? Why were Democrats “exploding” over “moderates’” behavior? The meeting centered around the use and misuse of a legislative maneuver called a “motion to recommit.” It allows the minority party to add amendments to a bill just before it is brought to a vote. The rule exists to keep the majority party from wielding unlimited legislative power, and is something each party protects for the day when they find themselves in the minority. Ever since the Democrats took control of the House, Republicans have been using the rule to stick abrasive nonsense amendments to important bills.
“On Wednesday,” reports Paul Blest for Splinter News, “the House passed a major gun control bill that is sure to die in the Senate, but which laid down an important marker of the party’s priorities. Before that, however, a Republican amendment to the bill that would notify ICE when an undocumented person buys a gun was offered up and shockingly passed, due in part to the votes of 26 House Democrats — many of them members of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition caucus. This wasn’t a trade for ‘bipartisanship.’ Only eight Republicans voted for the final bill itself. Twenty-six Democrats just gave them a racist amendment for free.”
Speaker Pelosi, who ran the “explosive” meeting, was in high dudgeon and for good reason. In the eight years the GOP held the majority in that chamber, the Democrats were unable to pass a single “motion to recommit” because there were never enough Republican votes to help them do it. Since January, and because of these Blue Dog “moderates,” minority House Republicans have already managed to get two stapled to legislation. “Vote no,” admonished Pelosi, “just vote no, because the fact is, a vote yes is to give leverage to the other side.”
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez wasn’t messing around, either. “When activists ask her why she had to vote for a gun safety bill that also further empowers an agency that forcibly injects kids with psychotropic drugs,” said Ocasio-Cortez spokesman Corbin Trent about the meeting described in the Washington Post article, “they’re going to want a list of names and she’s going to give it to them.” At the conclusion of the meeting, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez herself said, “I think it is an extension of Trump’s tactics into the House, and we cannot legitimatize it and we cannot allow for it and we cannot support it.”
While it is gratifying that enough conservative Democrats won in 2018 to alter the balance of power in the House, that altered balance is utterly meaningless if the Republicans are still allowed to call the shots. House Republicans wanted to jam the words “illegal immigrants” into a Democratic gun bill as a means of putting a tack on Speaker Pelosi’s chair, and the Blue Dogs were their willing dupes.
The background checks legislation passed by the House last week was the most important bill on the gun violence crisis passed by that chamber in decades. There has already been a vote on the Green New Deal, and there will be more to come on equally important Democratic priorities. These Blue Dogs need to wise up on a tactical level, or they are going to find out what life is like on the back bench with no committee assignments and a primary opponent who has Ocasio-Cortez on speed dial.
In the meantime, can we please dispense with the notion that these Blue Dog types are “moderates”? If they vote with conservatives, they are conservatives.
Politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are not part of some far-out faction to be marginalized by the puddle-minded media; they are the moderate Democrats. The clear-sighted policies they espouse — addressing the immediate threats of climate change, gun violence and wildly expensive health care to name but a few — are deeply pragmatic necessities.
Furthermore, these policies are all wildly popular with voters on both sides of the ideological spectrum, and can be paid for with an adjustment of our national priorities. The F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft is expected to cost at least $1.5 trillion before all is said and done. I can think of a few coastal cities which could use that money to stave off the ocean, which is coming, whether we like it or not. It’s either that, or the “conservatives” can try to bail the onrushing tides out of the boulevards with the alms bowls they usually fill with oil and coal dollars. The choice has become that stark.
It is time for the Blue Dogs and their media pals to get with the program and stop hiding behind meaningless labels and discredited tropes. The avalanche has begun, and the pebbles are taking the ride whether they like it or not. If they want to be on the right, they can try being on the right side of history, if there is anyone left to write it.
They are able to do this, thanks in no small part to the committed care and feeding of big-paper/big-network reporters, editorialists and producers, many of whom haven’t entertained a new idea since Windows 3.1 was the hot new thing. A recent spirited meeting of House Democrats gave these media types yet another chance to strut their fogbound stuff even as they gave cover to their “moderate” friends who, if you believe the mainstream stenographers out there, have it all figured out.
Their fallback tactic is ease: Inaccurate labeling stands in substitution for analysis because it is easier, tropes outmatch facts because they are easier, and lies from “important people” are not simply allowed to stand, but to flourish. Why? Because it is easier.
“House Democrats exploded in recriminations Thursday over moderates bucking the party, with liberal Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatening to put those voting with Republicans ‘on a list’ for a primary challenge,” reads the opening line of last week’s febrific Washington Post article on the Democrats’ meeting, only the most recent example of the practice.
There are 137 words in the first four paragraphs of that thoroughly frantic report, a bunch of which clearly strive to become lit sticks of dynamite in the next life. Exploded! Moderates bucking the party! Threatening! On a list! Primary challenge! Frustrated! Lashed out! Pressured! Unquestioned media superstar! Upped the ante! Admonishing! Liberal activists! Unseat! On a list, again! Would that I had pearls to clutch.
“Unquestioned media superstar” takes the biscuit in paragraph three, however. The term refers to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez while simultaneously dismissing her intelligence, skills, passion, wit, will and political savvy by turning her into another bit of TV fluff that will only be popular until the next big hot-minute celebrity comes along. She is bigger than that by many long miles, and those who can’t or won’t acknowledge that are setting themselves up for one hell of a surprise.
What was this House Democrats’ meeting about, anyway? Why were Democrats “exploding” over “moderates’” behavior? The meeting centered around the use and misuse of a legislative maneuver called a “motion to recommit.” It allows the minority party to add amendments to a bill just before it is brought to a vote. The rule exists to keep the majority party from wielding unlimited legislative power, and is something each party protects for the day when they find themselves in the minority. Ever since the Democrats took control of the House, Republicans have been using the rule to stick abrasive nonsense amendments to important bills.
“On Wednesday,” reports Paul Blest for Splinter News, “the House passed a major gun control bill that is sure to die in the Senate, but which laid down an important marker of the party’s priorities. Before that, however, a Republican amendment to the bill that would notify ICE when an undocumented person buys a gun was offered up and shockingly passed, due in part to the votes of 26 House Democrats — many of them members of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition caucus. This wasn’t a trade for ‘bipartisanship.’ Only eight Republicans voted for the final bill itself. Twenty-six Democrats just gave them a racist amendment for free.”
Speaker Pelosi, who ran the “explosive” meeting, was in high dudgeon and for good reason. In the eight years the GOP held the majority in that chamber, the Democrats were unable to pass a single “motion to recommit” because there were never enough Republican votes to help them do it. Since January, and because of these Blue Dog “moderates,” minority House Republicans have already managed to get two stapled to legislation. “Vote no,” admonished Pelosi, “just vote no, because the fact is, a vote yes is to give leverage to the other side.”
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez wasn’t messing around, either. “When activists ask her why she had to vote for a gun safety bill that also further empowers an agency that forcibly injects kids with psychotropic drugs,” said Ocasio-Cortez spokesman Corbin Trent about the meeting described in the Washington Post article, “they’re going to want a list of names and she’s going to give it to them.” At the conclusion of the meeting, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez herself said, “I think it is an extension of Trump’s tactics into the House, and we cannot legitimatize it and we cannot allow for it and we cannot support it.”
While it is gratifying that enough conservative Democrats won in 2018 to alter the balance of power in the House, that altered balance is utterly meaningless if the Republicans are still allowed to call the shots. House Republicans wanted to jam the words “illegal immigrants” into a Democratic gun bill as a means of putting a tack on Speaker Pelosi’s chair, and the Blue Dogs were their willing dupes.
The background checks legislation passed by the House last week was the most important bill on the gun violence crisis passed by that chamber in decades. There has already been a vote on the Green New Deal, and there will be more to come on equally important Democratic priorities. These Blue Dogs need to wise up on a tactical level, or they are going to find out what life is like on the back bench with no committee assignments and a primary opponent who has Ocasio-Cortez on speed dial.
In the meantime, can we please dispense with the notion that these Blue Dog types are “moderates”? If they vote with conservatives, they are conservatives.
Politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are not part of some far-out faction to be marginalized by the puddle-minded media; they are the moderate Democrats. The clear-sighted policies they espouse — addressing the immediate threats of climate change, gun violence and wildly expensive health care to name but a few — are deeply pragmatic necessities.
Furthermore, these policies are all wildly popular with voters on both sides of the ideological spectrum, and can be paid for with an adjustment of our national priorities. The F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft is expected to cost at least $1.5 trillion before all is said and done. I can think of a few coastal cities which could use that money to stave off the ocean, which is coming, whether we like it or not. It’s either that, or the “conservatives” can try to bail the onrushing tides out of the boulevards with the alms bowls they usually fill with oil and coal dollars. The choice has become that stark.
It is time for the Blue Dogs and their media pals to get with the program and stop hiding behind meaningless labels and discredited tropes. The avalanche has begun, and the pebbles are taking the ride whether they like it or not. If they want to be on the right, they can try being on the right side of history, if there is anyone left to write it.
third way and corporate democrats
anti-aca democrats
|
|
