I was just talking about that one “socialist” Bernie fan that told the infowars correspondent she had worms in her brain.
Evangelicals fear a "Blue Wave" but Democrats should fear evangelicals dk dk dk Rmuse Community Monday May 28, 2018 · 8:15 AM CDT A Blue Wave "might" delay the Christian Dominionist takeover of America. Spoiler As excitement grows on the Left for an anticipated “Blue Wave” in the upcoming midterm elections, it is apparent that what has transpired over the past few election cycles has the very real potential of happening again – the left gnashing its teeth and wailing over another disappointing election. For those who have not been keeping track, every couple of years while the left was prematurely celebrating the impending demise of the Republican movement and its theocratic aspirations, evangelicals were planning to flock to the polls to preserve and advance their progress for a theocratic America by 2020. If there is only one constant in every recent American election, it is that every religious right sycophant will show up at the polls to vote for the candidate who promises to save the fetus, save guns, increase control over women, punish gays, and impose god and the Christian bible on every American citizen. Many pundits have already claimed that the increasing number of Americans claiming no religious affiliation informs that the religious right, like the Republican Party, is fundamentally finished; but that claim has proven abjectly false over the past three election cycles as evidenced by the evangelical extremist ascendancy and complete dominance in government despite predictions of Republicans’ electoral defeat. The upcoming midterms are no different than the past few cycles and anyone who believes otherwise likely gloated while predicting that dumb Don Trump would be the death of the Republican and evangelical movement in 2016. Trump’s victory, in no small part a result of a robust turnout by evangelical moderates and extremists alike, and his appointments of dyed-in-the-wool religious right zealots in positions of power, should disabuse any sane American of the idea that the evangelicals’ theocratic aspirations were, or are, going to be dealt a death blow. It is curious that the evangelical extremist cult is terrified that a Blue Wave and subsequent Democratically controlled Congress will remove Trump and thwart their theocratic plans; especially when Mike “preacher” Pence is significantly more dangerous to America’s endangered secular democracy. Pence is a bonafide evangelical extremist who envisions an evangelical theocracy with him ruling America according to his Old Testament worldview. The religious right is terrified of the blue wave primarily because evangelicals ardently believe their theocratic plans will be crushed by a Democratically-controlled Congress itching to impeach Trump. One of their biggest fears is that without Trump, the nation’s federal courts will not be overrun with religious conservatives committed to creating, or ruling in favor of creating, a nation “founded on Judeo-Christian principles by establishing a biblically-based culture in America.” That theocratic goal and warning that it is in jeopardy if the Blue Wave actually happens was the source of angst from a devoted Trump supporter and theocratic champion of the religious right, the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody. Brody was warning the faithful of the existential threat of a “Blue Wave” in the midterm elections and what kind of disaster it will be “for the faith agenda and the Trump administration.” One member of the Dominionist cabal, Ralph Reed concurred with Brody and said: “If Democrats take control of Congress, they are going to move to impeach the president Trump. There’s no question about it.” Another Dominionist crusader who bestows “privileged access” to Brody to incite the faithful to action at his racist religious events agreed that it is crucial to keep Trump, and his religious right judicial appointments coming, at any cost. There is a concerted evangelical effort to keep on schedule for an ISIS-Taliban type theocracy to rule Americans, and the Christian Reconstructionists fear that a Blue Wave will delay their intent to fully implement “their theocratic agenda” by 2020. Brody’s theocratic cohort, Christian nationalist and white supremacist David Lane boasted: “We are really clear about what we are doing. There is no hidden agenda about it. We’re trying to restore our Judeo-Christian heritage and reestablish a biblically-based culture in America.” Set aside the dirty lie that America was ever established as a Judeo-Christian or biblically-based society, Brody, like Lane, has no reason to conceal the Dominionist agenda any longer. But he warned the Christian Broadcasting Network acolytes that their dream of ruling “Christian America” with an iron fist “could be squelched if Democrats win in 2018. Evangelicals see Trump implementing that agenda so far, but after 2018, it’s anybody’s guess.” To demonstrate how frightened the Dominionist cult is of not imposing theocracy on the nation, Brody agrees with other right wing religious extremists who insist that the Republican Party is still not doing nearly enough to advance the evangelicals’ theocratic ambitions. The consensus among the evangelical extremist sect is that the RNC: “Should be doing even more care and feeding of the evangelical base.” Brody quoted renowned conservative political consultant Dave Carney saying: “Liberals are motivated by their blind hatred of the president” Trump and Republicans will have to motivate a higher evangelical turnout this year to overcome what’s building on the Left.” There is hatred of Trump on the Left, and it was developed before Trump’s poorly-attended inauguration, but it is borne of regard for preserving America as a secular democracy, concern for the plight of minorities, women, the environment, and the rule of law. There is nothing whatsoever “blind” driving the animus and growing opposition to a racist and corrupt megalomaniac destroying America. Of course there is momentum on “the Left,” but it always appears there is momentum for Democrats only to see Republicans gain seats in Congress and worse, in the states. And it is noteworthy to mention that despite the unpopularity of Trump or Republicans for that matter, the religious right was more than devoted to support a filthy sinner simply because he would allow a surrogate for the religious right theocrats, the Heritage Foundation, provide a list of “Dominionist approved” nominees to serve on the federal courts at all levels. All elections are crucial and there are always severe consequences for the over-confidence typically borne of predictions and popularity polls that predict victory; but they nearly always fail to factor in the theocratic voting bloc. Those evangelical voters would willingly vote for Satan the Devil if he was a Republican and pledged to impose god, the Christian bible, more guns, and the Aryan agenda on the people and their government — the goal of Dominionist Christians. Anyone who does not believe that to be true obviously was in a coma during the 2016 general election campaign for the presidency; the 2016 election demonstrated beyond dispute that no matter how evil a candidate, the religious right will vote for them unconditionally if they pledge fealty to the theocratic mission. Now that they see a real Blue Wave threat to their congressional majority, and theocratic agenda, the various sects adhering to Christian Dominionists’ agenda will show up at the polls en masse, and they will campaign with a sense of urgency from the pulpit courtesy of their sinful facilitator Trump. That urgency is something our side nearly always seems to lack — likely because they’ve been fed fake news that the impending Blue Wave is unstoppable.
Rereading Grapes of Wrath Chapter 19 really popped for me last night. Spoiler And the great owners, who must lose their land in an upheaval, the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed. The great owners ignored the three cries of history. The land fell into fewer hands, the number of dispossessed increased, and every effort of the great owners was directed at oppression. The money was spent for arms, for gas to protect the great holdings, and spies were sent to catch the murmuring of revolt so that it might be stamped out. The changing economy was ignored, plans for the change ignored; and only means to destroy revolt were considered, while the causes of revolt went on. The tractors which throw men out of work, the belt lines which carry loads, the machines which produce, all were increased; and more and more families scampered on the highways, looking for crumbs from the great holdings, lusting after the land beside the roads. The great owners formed associations for protection and they met to discuss ways to intimidate, to kill, to gas. And always they were in fear of a principal, three hundred thousand, if they ever move under a leader, the end. Three hundred thousand, hungry and miserable; if they ever know themselves, the land will be theirs and all the gas, all the rifles in the world won't stop them. And the great owners, who had become through their holdings both more and less than men, ran to their destruction, and used every means that in the long run would destroy them. Every little means, every violence, every raid on a Hooverville, every deputy swaggering through a ragged camp put off the day a little and cemented the inevitability of the day. The men squatted on their hams, sharp-faced men, lean from hunger and hard from resisting it, sullen eyes and hard jaws. And the rich land was around them. Did-ja hear about the kid in that fourth tent down? No, I jus' come in. Well, that kid's been a-cryin' in his sleep an' a-rollin' in his sleep. Them folks thought he got worms. So they give him a blaster, an' he died. It was what they call black-tongue the kid had. Comes from not gettin' good things to eat. Poor little fella. Yeah, but them folks can't bury him. Got to go to the county stone orchard. Well, hell. And hands went into pockets and little coins came out. In front of the tent a little heap of silver grew. And the family found it there. Our people are good people; our people are kind people. Pray God some day kind people won't all be poor. Pray God some day a kid can eat. And the associations of owners knew that some day the praying would stop. And there's the end.
i have to confess something that's probs quite cliche at this point for someone my age: since becoming a regular listener of chapo trap house v recently, i believe i've become a full-on leftist.
Good read on Bobby, the Kerner Commission report, then and now and going forward from DK Fifty years after his death, lessons from Bobby Kennedy for Democrats fighting to win back Congress Thursday June 07, 2018 · 8:30 AM CDT Rep. John Lewis speaks at a ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy Spoiler 1968 is largely noted as a year that fundamentally changed America. A very unpopular war in Vietnam had escalated with no end in sight—dividing the country to the point that the sitting Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, had decided not to seek a second term. That same year, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, also known as the Kerner Commission, issued a report that signaled a dangerous future for race relations in the US. The commission identified white racism as the reason for a series of violent riots that had occurred in cities across the country the year before. Citing discrimination in policing, barriers to affordable housing, economic inequality and poor education, the commission warned that the country was on its way to becoming two different and inherently unequal societies—one white and one black. Nearly two weeks after the report came out, Robert F. Kennedy announced his bid to become president. His candidacy was short-lived and tragic. He announced in mid-March and in early April, Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed. A month and a day later, Kennedy himself was shot. He died the next day. This week marks the 50th anniversary of his death. And in a year that has also been marked by huge change and transition, it's worth looking at the lessons we can learn about race and politics from Kennedy’s legacy. In February, the Economic Policy Institute issued a report that examined the conditions of black Americans and racial inequality five decades after the Kerner Commission report. Its findings were dismal. The institute concluded that while blacks in America were “better off in absolute terms” than they were in 1968, there was almost no progress in the areas of home ownership, unemployment and incarceration rates. In fact, in many cases things were worse. Here are some of the incredibly alarming trends highlighted in the report: The unemployment rate for African Americans in 2017 (the last full year of data) was 7.5 percent, 0.8 percentage points higher than it was in 1968 (6.7 percent). The unemployment rate for whites was 3.8 percent in 2017 and 3.2 percent in 1968. One of the most important forms of wealth for working and middle-class families is home equity. Yet, the share of black households that owned their own home remained virtually unchanged between 1968 (41.1 percent) and today (41.2 percent). Over the same period, homeownership for white households increased 5.2 percentage points to 71.1 percent, about 30 percentage points higher than the ownership rate for black households. [...] In 1968, African Americans were about 5.4 times as likely as whites to be in prison or jail. Today, African Americans are 6.4 times as likely as whites to be incarcerated, which is especially troubling given that whites are also much more likely to be incarcerated now than they were in 1968.” So while the country and world have changed drastically in 50 years, the overall conditions have not for black America. These were some of the very things that Robert Kennedy was concerned about and tried to address in his campaign. Would they be different if he lived and become president? We’ll never know. But his work on these issues offers much food for thought and a possible road map for Democrats as they seek to take back Congress in 2018 and the presidency in 2020. Though Kennedy is often lauded as a civil rights champion, he wasn’t always seen as a hero among civil rights community. According to author David Margolick as quoted by NPR , the relationship between Kennedy and King was cautious. "You have to understand that for much of white America, King was a controversial, even divisive, figure. Especially in the South, and the Kennedys needed those votes." They also needed black votes, and King had the potential for turning out the black vote — especially in the South — or sitting on his hands. It was an interesting dilemma, says Margolick. "The Kennedys were politicians — they had to be careful with Martin Luther King. They had to cultivate him ... but they had to keep their distance from him." While the Kennedys and King all supported and wanted the same thing, they went about it in very different ways. Even more distinct was the approach of Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam. The Kennedy administration’s slow and cautious approach to progress on civil rights led to feelings of mistrust and suspicion on the part of many in the movement. These sentiments were no doubt the reason why Kennedy received quite an education from the famous entertainers and civil rights activists he met with in 1963. Per Kennedy’s request, writer James Baldwin pulled together a group of 11 black artists, academics and leaders in the movement to meet at the Kennedy family residence in New York City. They discussed what the administration could do about civil rights and the anger that was slowly building alongside a movement that was hallmarked by non-violence. Kennedy laid out all the things that he and his brother were doing to advance civil rights and noted that they were groundbreaking. But he got an earful when he was confronted with anger about the deep racial inequality that blacks had endured for so long. Politico recalls recalls that it was Jerome Smith, a 24-year-old activist, who was the first that evening to show that he wasn’t afraid to challenge Kennedy. “Mr. Kennedy, I want you to understand I don’t care anything about you and your brother,” he began. “I don’t know what I’m doing here, listening to all this cocktail party patter.” The real threat to white America wasn’t the Black Muslims, Smith insisted, it was when nonviolence advocates like him lost hope. The 24-year-old’s record made his words resonate. He had suffered as many savage beatings as any civil rights protester of the era, including one for which he was getting medical care in New York. But his patience and his pacifism were wearing thin, he warned his rapt audience. If the police came at him with more guns, dogs and hoses, he would answer with a weapon of his own. “When I pull a trigger,” he said, “kiss it goodbye.” Smith went on to tell Kennedy that while young black people would fight for equality in America, they were unwilling to fight abroad for a country that was actively oppressing them. The meeting got even more heated when the others in the room wanted to know why the government wasn’t more aggressive in tackling systemic racism or poverty in the inner cities. Kennedy was shocked and frustrated. He was visibly angry as his guests left. But five years later, he had learned to deeply listen to black leaders—making it a practice to frequently visit black communities in rural and urban areas, working to end poverty and joblessness and standing up to segregationists. Politico suggests that this had a huge impact on his relationship with blacks and his contributions the civil rights movement overall. Though he had a steep learning curve when it came to race, it is noted that “By the time of his death in June 1968, Bobby was the most trusted white man in black America.” This is a lesson that Democrats in 2018 would do well to learn. The party’s approach to black communities and voters is often very similar to that of Kennedy in 1963. There is a lot of telling black people what Democrats are doing for them and not nearly enough listening. There is a longstanding trend of the party not taking black concerns or votes seriously until election time. But this is not a strategy that will serve the party well in the future. Young black people, in particular, are not about to be taken for granted and they fully expect Democrats to earn their trust, respect and votes. This starts with doing a lot of listening—to the needs, wants and concerns of black people. Last year, Democrats rolled out a new economic plan with the messaging “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future.” They largely centered this message around working-class whites, hoping to appeal to the folks who voted for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton. They even went to rural America to try to sell it. Yet, just a 10- minute drive from Capitol Hill in Southeast Washington, D.C., black communities are languishing in poverty. One day this April, the students and teachers at Anacostia High School, which serves primarily low-income, black students, staged a walkout when they arrived to school only to find a flooded cafeteria and no functioning toilets in the entire building. The Washington Post covered the story: The demonstration, teachers said, reflects mounting vexation over unreasonable expectations placed on teachers and disparities between the city’s wealthiest neighborhood schools and poorest. Anacostia is in a low-income swath of the city, and more than nine of every 10 students at the school are considered at-risk — defined as homeless, recipients of welfare or food stamps, and those more than a year behind in high school. The part of the district that Anacostia High School is located in, Ward 8, is nearly 94 percent black. In 2013, the poverty rate in Ward 8 was 34 percent with 25 percent of the population facing unemployment. There is a high crime rate and a constant police presence in the area. It is also essentially a food desert, littered with fast food options but hardly any grocery stores. But since gentrification has hit almost all areas of the city, and the average family income in Ward 8 is below the citywide average and falling, it would be likely impossible for most Ward 8 residents to afford housing anywhere else in DC. Economic inequality, poor education, discrimination in policing, lack of affordable housing options. Those are the things the Kerner Commission pointed to half a century ago as reasons why America is such an unequal society for blacks. And, this is the exact reality for so many black communities today—including ones that are just a few miles from Democratic Party headquarters in the Nation’s Capital. If Democrats really want to develop an economic message that is supposed to help all people, especially the most vulnerable in America, they need to start with what’s right in front of their noses. Current data shows us that the stark inequality that existed for blacks in 1968 persists today. Why is addressing this not a central part of the party platform—particularly in 2018 and leading up to 2020. Sure, paying attention to these and developing substantive policy plans to address them are all things that will help the party get votes. But in the long run it will do more to change lives. And, even more importantly, it will begin to fill America’s promise as a nation that leaves no one behind. Bobby Kennedy had the foresight and courage to fight for this 50 years ago. He made it a point to learn from the voices of black people who held his feet to the fire and began tackling these issues in earnest. It’s time for the Democratic Party to do the very same thing. Though his life was cut short and the country might have been very different under his leadership, we must follow in his footsteps now. The situation facing black America is urgent and rapidly deteriorating under Donald Trump. The time to act is now. We cannot wait until 2068 to start seriously working to improve black lives.
like i understand if you didn’t like bernie as a candidate. but lmao at “all the damage he’s done to this country” fucking old people
I don’t think it is in and of itself...but at this particular point in time it seems needlessly antagonistic and/or simply tone deaf.
I don’t know...the Russian’s planting another Jill Stein in the Dem field is a very real threat. I get why BernieBros are mad, but I think this move is larger than him.
Per wiki: the following 22 states (mostly in the South and the Midwest) do not provide for party preferences in voter registration: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. So you really wonder how much of a difference this whole thing makes? When someone says they are running for the Democratic nomination for president, they are effectively claiming to be a Democrat.
It’s bad optics. It feels more like they are trying to put down an insurgency when they should be figuring out how to harness the energy the Sanders campaign generated.
Meh. A shit load of those people were basically just anti Hilary/Democrat ideals and ended up voting for Trump. I'm not saying everyone, but there's so much of that it's pretty gross.
h I was Clinton and status quo throughout 2016, but in hindsight, Sanders had a better message and motivated way more voters. He killed her in the Midwest primaries. Huge support among unions. She lost the general the same place he beat her there.
Right, there was a lot of overlap between the "fuck that bitch" weirdos in Sanders supporters and ultimately Trump voters.
The leadership is still doing things like trotting out another Kennedy for the State of the Union rebuttal. Please, come try more of our boring as shit vanilla ice cream, because no one is afraid of vanilla ice cream. They haven’t shown me that two years of Trump has shaken them out of any complacency. They assume they will take the House in 2018 for the same reasons they assumed everyone would fall in line in 2016.
I'm not really talking about anything besides the idea that all of the Sanders supporters are someone we should embrace. I just don't think that's true
Yeah that plus all the collusion and rigging going on at the DNC, right under our noses, and it looks bad for the Dems. Outrageous!
The party needs to do more than play prevent defense and hope to win elections by being the better among two bad options.
You have to be incredibly obtuse not to recognize the clear need for the dems to institute a far more transparent process...and not even exclusively because it’s the right thing to do from an ideological standpoint.
Sanders and his ilk should go create the Revolutionista! Party, and stop undermining actual Dems. If there is true ideological thirst for the leftist rainbow and unicorn platform, then people will embrace a clear cut offering in massive numbers, and all the craft beardsmen will be delivered to the promised land.
I thought Sanders dropped the ball by not stressing the importance of the general and frankly i don’t really care about him but you’re acting like a typical petulant boomer if you refuse to see that lukewarm republican lite politics are a recipe for disaster. Attempting to play nice and pragmatic with the republicans obviously doesn’t work.
This would not have affected Bernie in 2016 and would not affect Bernie in 2020, I think this has more to do with some state legislators (NYS has a couple of them) that run as democrats but caucus with the GOP.
The real question should be how many Bernie Bros went 3rd party vs Hillary voters that went 3rd party, but it’s irrelevant now.
A DK contributor reviews reasons we are so divided. Goes back to Newt and Bill Our nation is permanently fractured Spoiler Frank Vyan Walton Community Sunday June 10, 2018 · 2:00 PM CDT The Left and Right of America: facing off against each other I’ve come to the realization of late that America may be irrevocably broken. Fractured. Split down the middle. It seems that some see things one way, and others see it in a completely opposite, parallax view, as if we’re all living in a full-time 3-D Rorschach test, where reality is fungible. Everything is open to interpretation, opinion, conjecture, speculation, argumentation. Nothing simply exists. Nothing is a simple fact. Of course it isn’t an accident that this is the case. The situation isn’t new. It’s been deliberately manufactured, exacerbated and exploited for many generations, by many factions all for their own self-aggrandizing purposes. I’m just finally realizing that our American Humpty Dumpty is so broken, there’s no piecing it back together again. I started doing current events and blog post online in the ‘90s, largely because I was puzzled by the virulent backlash at the time to the presidency of Bill Clinton which was led by Newt Gingrich who was the new architect for the “go negative” strategy that ultimately propelled the GOP to take over the House for the first time in 40 years and made him speaker. Newt Gingrich described his first congressional opponent as corrupt and incompetent. His next one, according to Gingrich, supported welfare cheaters. After being elected to Congress from Georgia in 1978, his target became the liberal welfare state. He called the Democratic leadership destructive and thugs, dubbed his opponents’ positions radical and said some Democrats were willing to kill jobs to help win an election. “The things that came out of Gingrich’s mouth ... we had never heard that before from either side,” said Steve Anthony, a Georgia State University lecturer who once headed the state Democratic Party. “Gingrich went so far over the top that the shock factor rendered the opposition frozen for a few years.” Most of the italicized words appear in a 1990 training memo teaching Republican candidates how to “speak like Newt.” Newtspeak lives today — it issues regularly from Gingrich’s lectern at the GOP presidential debates — and if it’s effective now, it was downright revolutionary when Gingrich and others pioneered it in the 1980s. Many credit Gingrich — or blame him — for transforming American politics with words. “The things that came out of Gingrich’s mouth ... we had never heard that before from either side,” said Steve Anthony, a Georgia State University lecturer who once headed the state Democratic Party. “Gingrich went so far over the top that the shock factor rendered the opposition frozen for a few years.” Continued... This was essentially a tactic, a ploy, but it has had a lasting impact. The opposition wasn’t simply someone who disagreed, or had a different view, they were hellspawn demons bent on national destruction and destitution. They were corrupt. They. Were. Evil. And even some of Gringrich’s own allies thought it was problematic at the time: “I am not sure we did the political system a favor,” said Rusty Paul, a former Georgia Republican Party chairman and onetime aide to U.S. Rep. Jack Kemp, who worked closely with Gingrich. “The language we have used over the past 20 years has so polarized Congress. ... The society is as divided as the political rhetoric.” Yes, it is divided. As we all know all this rancor essentially led to a stalking of the presidency, through Whitewater, to Troopergate, Filegate, Travelgate, Fostergate ultimately to Monicagate and Impeachment. And not all of this came from the right, “liberal” Hollywood also played its role releasing Primary Colors and Walk the Dog which both essentially imagined that a presidential candidate who just happened to amazingly resemble Bill Clinton and the sitting U.S. president who also resembled Clinton, respectively, were [spoiler alert] closeted pedophiles intent to stop at literally nothing, including using payoffs or the distraction of a false war to escape responsibility and accountability for their crimes. Primary Colors Gov. Jack Staton, as portrayed by John Travolta, made sense and he wasn’t wrong as he diagnosed the economic problems that affected the Rust Belt nearly 30 years ago. But even Hollywood knew this fantasy Democrat was essentially corrupt in the most vile possible way. In Wag the Dog, Robert De Niro’s “fixer” uses the imagery, fear creating and heart-string tugging skills of Hollywood to create a temporary media distraction that gets an American president through the breaking of a personal crisis in the last days of his re-election. The conflict is fake. The threat is fake. There is no suitcase bomb hidden in Canada about to be smuggled into the U.S., created in secret terrorist training camps in the hinterlands of Albania. All of that was B.S. intended to keep the eye of the American public off the ball. And in a very real way—it worked because just one year after this film was released in 1998 Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States and President Bill Clinton authorized a cruise missile strike against Kobar Farms which was his last reported position, but since that strike was launched literally on the day that he was Impeached he was immediately accused of “Wagging the Dog” by trying to come up with a “fake phony war” to distract from his own private dalliances. President Clinton won warm support for ordering anti-terrorist bombing attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday from many of the same lawmakers who have criticized him harshly as a leader critically weakened by poor judgment and reckless behavior in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal. […] But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of Clinton's severest critics earlier in the week, said, "There's an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation." Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), a possible presidential candidate in 2000, noted "there is a cloud over this presidency." And Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who called on Clinton to resign after his speech Monday, said: "The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action." […] Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) stressed the importance of a strong U.S. role in foreign affairs, and criticized the administration for ignoring problems other than bin Laden, including Iraq dragging its feet on arms inspections, "North Korea building nuclear weapons," a stalled Mideast peace process, and "thousands of people being ethnically cleansed in Kosovo. "This administration for the last seven months has neglected compelling national security threats besides this," said McCain, a member of the Armed Services Committee. "I cannot say that they've been neglected because of Monica Lewinsky, but I can say unequivocally that they have been neglected." That’s where we were 20 years ago. Bill Clinton tried to bomb Osama bin Laden and although many in Congress supported the action, including Gingrich, others seriously suggested that Clinton may have either been using this attack as a distraction of the Lewinsky issue, or else was too distracted by the Lewinsky issue and may have become “obsessed” with bin Laden. Since then it’s only grown worse. Nearly a decade later, after bin Laden attacked us both with the U.S. Cole bombing and the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington there was now a thread that he had been “too timid to pull the trigger” in addressing the Al-Qaeda threat as it was presented by the ABC 2 night mini-series Path to 9-11 exactly five years after the event itself. The truth is that it was George W. Bush who was too feckless to pull the trigger and respond to any of the warnings about bin Laden which went on for months starting with then Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke’s Delenda Plan to address Al-Qaeda. As we noted to you in our briefings for you, al Qida is not some narrow little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy. Rather, several of our regional policies need to address centrally the transnational challenge to the U.S. and our interests posed by Al Qida network. […] Al Qida is an active, organized, major force that is using a distorted version of Islam to achieve two goals: to drive the U.S. out of the Muslim world, forcing the withdrawal of our military and economic presence in countries from Morocco to Indonesia. to replace moderate, modern, Western regimes in Muslim countries with theocracies modeled along the lines of the Taliban. […] I recommend that you have a Principles discussion of al Qida soon and address the following issues: Threat Magnitude: Do the Principles agree that al Qida presents a first order threat to US interests in a number of regions, or is this analysis a “chicken little” over reaching and we can proceed without major new initiatives and by handling this in a more routine matter? Strategy: If this is a first order matter, how should the existing strategy be modified or strengthened? Two elements of the existing strategy that have not been made to work effectively are a) going after al Qida’s money and b) public information to counter al Qida’s propaganda. FY02 Budget: Should we continue the funding increases into State and CIA programs intended to al Qida strategy? immediate [Redacted] Decisions: Should we initiate [redacted] funding to the Northern Alliance and to the Uzbek’s? The NSC principles meeting requested here by Clarke on January 25, 2001, didn’t actually occur until August—just a few weeks before the ultimate attack on September 11. No immediate actions was taken even after that meeting, while in the meantime other warnings had piled up from the FBI Phoenix Memo about guys learning to “fly planes, but not land them” at least 50 warnings of potential hijackings from the FAA, the midnight ride to Condoleeza Rice’s office to personally warn her about Al-Qaeda and the August 6 PDB which identified potential targets in both New York and Washington. The Bushies were apparently too busy to pay attention to any of this while conducting their weekly strategy meetings on Iraq. Bush used the hyper-patriot distraction strategy of Wag the Dog to keep people off the scent of his own failure to pay proper attention to the real threat so he could push America into the Iraq War based on faked intelligence reports generated by torture and a paid informant so shady they called him “Curveball” while continuing to ignore warnings about the forged Niger Yellowcake document that generated the 16 words from George Tenet, ex-European CIA Chief Tyler Drumheller and ultimately Ambassador Joe Wilson. Then just as now, some saw things one way and other choose to see it another. The difference being, one view was that bin Laden was a threat and another was that he was merely a puppet and tool of Iraq. And we know where all that led us. Down a rabbit hole. The Lewinsky scandal and his impeachment damaged the reputation of Clinton causing him to stand down during the 2000 election fight between Al Gore and Bush ultimately allowing a narrow victory for Bush. We then saw the “corrupt, feckless” narrative used again during the Bush re-election fight against Vietnam War Hero John Kerry as VP Cheney opined gravely “If we make the wrong decision — we might be hit again.” This completely ignores the reality that we were hit the first time not because Bill Clinton was “too distracted by Monica” but because Bush and Cheney were too distracted by Saddam Hussein. One set of Americans saw this one way, and another set saw it completely differently. This hasn’t changed over 20 years, it’s only grown worse. With the advent of Fox News, Breitbart and Newsmax one narrative—that which is most advantageous to the needs of the GOP support system of modern robber barons—is constantly pushed, while the mainstream media continues to push the narrative of false equivalency and equal levels of corruption among the parties. I’ll leave you with one more prophetic film example of how deep our national split has grown. Bob Roberts, the 1992 movie where Tim Robbins plays an ultra right-wing senatorial candidate who is also a media star. He is able to woo a rabid throng of adoring admirers to his cause while thoroughly gaslighting them by manipulating the media coverage to his advantage time and time again. Remind you of anyone? And there were also his rabid fans and his handling of the media. Again, since the 90’s, the 2000’s and the 8 year term of Barack Obama this has only gotten worse. From Limbaugh to Fox News and Brietbart the alternative reality narrative has only grown louder and brighter with it’s conspiracy theories and attacks on the rest of us. We were told Obama was a “Muslim”, that he was secretly “Kenyan” and also secretly a “Black Nationalist” and “Anti-Colonial”, that he “hated America”, that he was in league with the Muslim brotherhood. that he was a “Racist” because he was sympathetic with the victims of police abuse and murder, that he was secretly “Gay” and that his wife Michelle was a trans-woman and his children were somehow completely fabricated. We were repeatedly told that he went on an “apology tour” across the world, that he “coddled our enemies” and repelled our friends, that he and Hillary had a secret affair, that he plotted to get Ambassador Chris Stevens killed in Benghazi, by issuing a “stand down” order wthich shades of the “Path to 9/11” smear. None of which is true for any of us, but a vast swath of Americans believe every bit of this nonsense and far worse. Every good accomplishment, from implementing the ACA, prioritizing and authorizing the hunting down and killing of Bin Laden [for which he received absolutely zero credit in Zero Dark Thirty], sending in Seal Team 6 to rescue the crew of the Maersk Alabama from Somalian pirates [for which he received zero credit in Captain Phillips] and pulling the economy out of the ditch of the great recession wast strategically either ignored or reviled. Now we have Trump who openly gaslights the nation with paranoid delusions from the WH through his outaded unsecured Samsung Galaxy S5 on Twitter each and every day. As much as we scream that Trump is lying, the more his rabid fans ignore what we say and dismiss it as “fake news” and bitter partisan Trump derangement syndrome. I don’t know that these divergent visions of American can necessarily be stitched back together into a cohesive coherent whole. I don’t know if we can heal the decades of gaslighting, fake grievance and out right bullshit that is coursing through the veins of the Alt-Right Alt Media. Trump didn’t invent any of this, this was the existing landscape when he ultimately decided to run—but the sad part is that it will likely remain to be the case long after he’s gone. The optimist in me wants there to be a solution to it all, some way to negotiate back into a common state of reality, some way to avoid what seems inevitable, the pragmatist says we must have a solution or our society will slowly dissolve into a permanent state of conflict, strife and acrimony. I still have hope, but the realist in my says —we’re fracked, literally.
Watching an ad for a republican candidate for atty general in Florida has me trying to understand the "liberal elite" concept. Every republican candidate throws in those buzz words (this guy made his money the old fashioned way...marrying well. Her family is bankrolling his entire campaign and lifestyle). Florida is completely republican run and the money is pretty one sided (same can be said for the federal government). So what does "elite" in the political context even mean? The losing side with no money? How does that translate into "elite"?
Billionaire Paul Tudor Jones is worried about the wealth gap. Here is why. Billionaire Paul Tudor Jones said the growing wealth gap needs to be addressed by companies. Companies need to consider how they treat their workers and customers. Tudor's comments signal a shift in the debate. Spoiler Robert Frank | @robtfrank Published 3 Hours Ago Updated 1 Hour Ago CNBC.com https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/06/...f-based-on-paul-tudor-jones-just-capital.html Goldman to launch new ETF based on Paul Tudor Jones' 'Just Capital' 6 Hours Ago | 07:01 Billionaire Paul Tudor Jones said something on CNBC on Tuesday morning that marked a major turning point in the wealth debate. The former cotton-trader-turned-hedge-funder told Andrew Ross Sorkin that income inequality in the U.S. had gone too far — and that it was the responsibility of companies to help fix it. "In 1985, 35 percent of the wealth in this country was owned by the bottom 90 percent," he said. "Today, 23 percent of the wealth is owned by the 90 percent and that 12 percent difference has gone to the top one-tenth of the 1 percent. Capitalism may need modernizing." Jones' broader point was that companies have tilted too far toward shareholders and profits and they need to start paying more attention to how they pay and treat workers and customers. He said old definitions of corporate success, started with Milton Friedman in the 1970s, were outdated because inequality was "one-fifth of what it is today." The fact that Jones was suddenly sounding the alarm on inequality is news. This was not a left-leaning billionaire, like Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, once again espousing the party line. Jones has always considered himself an independent and has not been very active in politics. In fact, despite his charitable giving through the Robin Hood Foundation, his Greenwich, Connecticut, mansion was picketed by left-leaning protesters in 2015 who called him the face of hedge fund greed and influence. They held up a giant banner that read: "Paul Tudor Jones, Robbing Our Hood." So this marked an important statement from Jones. The question is why? His main reason is that unless companies and investors step up and change their priorities — to put more emphasis on employees, customers and products — inequality will get worse and the government will be forced to step in to close the wealth gap. And that, he said, would be the worst path. "I don't think you can have this kind of income stratification without having government come in at some point," he said. "And to me that is the worst of all outcomes because that is the worst way to redistribute income. So hopefully this is an organic way we can drive resources." A government solution, he said, could take the country back to the 1970s and "90 percent taxes" on the top earners. So along with trying to create a more just and fair economy, Jones is also acting out of enlightened self-interest. Unless the wealthy — CEOs and investors like him — try to ease inequality, government will do it for them. And the government solution might be a lot more painful than corporate change.
DK story A new poll and a trailblazing organization offer keys to Democrats looking to energize black voters Kelly Macias Daily Kos Staff Wednesday June 13, 2018 · 12:12 PM CDT Black PAC polling suggests that understanding young black voters is key for Democrats to win elections in the future. Democrats looking to win in 2018 must do more to be the party that represents a diverse, changing and progressive America. This begins with developing a clear understanding of the electorate—specifically black Americans, who have long remained faithful to the party. Yet, even among black voters, particularly young ones, things are changing. Gone are the days of accepting engagement with the party once every election cycle with nothing in return for their vote. Black people have critical issues of concern that they want addressed for themselves, their families and communities. This represents a shift in politics as usual. Traditional black outreach has focused on voter turnout. But one newly formed organization is concerned about engaging black voters around issues of relevance and importance for the black community—on Election Day and beyond... Spoiler Black PAC was founded in 2016 and operates under the leadership of Adrianne Shropshire, a long-time organizer and activist who has worked for decades on issues of economic and racial justice. Black PAC’s mission is clear—to demonstrate the power that black voters wield and to rally them around an agenda to dismantle structural racism and increase opportunity. The group does this by connecting with voters through long-term and sustained engagement. And though you may have never heard of Black PAC, you are certainly familiar with the results of its work. The organization was critical to 2017 Democratic electoral victories in Virginia and Alabama. In a call with Daily Kos, Shropshire emphasized that, for black voters, both the special elections in 2017 and the midterms this year are specifically about issues and an agenda that will improve black lives. “For black voters this cycle—and this didn’t just start in 2018, we saw this last year’s special elections and in November—this cycle is really about issues for black voters and really about an agenda,” Shropshire said. “And so while one of those issues is the rise of racism and the impact that’s having on black communities, which black voters place squarely at the feet of Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, there’s also a set of issues that people care about very deeply.” Black PAC’s strategy: talk to black voters early and often and turn them out to vote for candidates who speak to their areas of concern. Addressing key issues was key to Black PAC’s successful voter outreach in Alabama and Virginia. In Alabama, the organization spent $2.1 million to engage with voters about access to health care, the growth of livable and union-protected jobs, and criminal justice system reform. The group knocked on more than 500,000 doors in majority black communities across the state and spoke with more than 130,000 voters. In Virginia, Black PAC spent $1.1 million while addressing black Virginians’ concerns about racial justice and white supremacy. There, it knocked on another 50,000 doors and secured pledges to vote from 90 percent of the people who were engaged. They also sent text messages to more than 50,000 voters in the days leading up to Election Day. Black PAC utilized this same strategy in last month’s Georgia Democratic primary. The organization spent $1.2 million on engaging black voters around the issues of economic and educational fairness and racial justice. Its members knocked on over 23,000 doors and aired TV ads across the state which reached more than 4 million voters. Something the group is doing is clearly working in terms of getting Democrats elected. Recently, the organization commissioned a large-sample, multi-state poll of black voters in eight key battleground states. The poll was conducted by Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies, led by renowned Democratic pollster, Cornell Belcher. The results give insight into the diversity among black voters, their deep dissatisfaction with the current political climate and the issues they rank as most important for them. More importantly, it indicates that Democrats could be in trouble if they continue to ignore issues of importance to black communities. In a telephone interview, Belcher acknowledged that this kind of poll doesn’t happen very often and would not have if it were not for Black PAC. He stressed the poll’s success in delving deeper into the black community to understand values and culture, beyond politics. Shropshire and Belcher say that there is no single issue is motivating black voter engagement this year and that people are very concerned about issues like economic insecurity, wages, housing, health care, education and college affordability. However, it is the issues related to racial justice that are the most motivating in terms of engaging people to vote and take action. These issues are framed broadly in the areas of voting rights, police accountability, criminal justice etc. Therefore, candidates and the Democratic Party running on “the resistance” to Trump is not, on its own, enough to secure votes. Instead, there is a resistance that black voters, young and old, have to the overall environment. “The largest gaps [in the poll] are between the importance of these issues and how Democrats are doing on those issues,” Belcher said. “Fighting racism and discrimination, police harassment, funding for schools, crime and violence. … There are a lot of issues that are important to African Americans that, frankly, Democrats are not well positioned on right now. Democrats need to do better in terms of showing that they are fighting for these issues and the community and these votes than they are.” Shropshire said the poll is not a one-time thing nor should it be if we are to really understand what is happening to the black electorate over time. She emphasized that 2016 clearly demonstrated that black people who vote don’t always think the same way about issues, about what’s happening in the country or how they choose to participate. Therefore, it is important to explore why voting dropped off among black voters in 2016 and why some chose to vote third party. This is why the poll targeted a wide range of people—across gender, age and location. “What typically happens [with regard to polling black voters] isn’t enough information for the kind of work that Black PAC is trying to do,” Shropshire said. “Part of that is based on what we saw in 2016, in terms of this idea that the approach to the black electorate is either specifically about who are black people going to vote for or the assumption that the vote is generic. That’s not helpful in understanding how black folks engage in our democracy.” Understanding how young voters of color are shaping the outcomes of elections is also key—both in 2016, 2018 and beyond. Belcher is steadfast in his belief that these voters, who voted third party or did not vote at all in 2016, influenced the outcome of the last presidential election. He says that young black people are not motivated by their vote being used as a check on Trump. Instead, they see voting as a way to force movement and support an issue agenda focused on their community. The data from the poll reflects this. Some highlights: There is a considerable gap (18 points) between millennial vote likelihood (65 percent very likely) and baby boomers (83 percent very likely). Black millennial men are even less likely to say that they are very likely to vote. Millennials are notably less interested (50 percent much more interested) in voting and participating in this year’s midterm election than older voters (69 percent of boomers say they are much more interested). Millennials are less likely to identify strongly with the Democratic party and among the most likely to be undecided or choosing 3rd-party in their generic midterm voting preference. These voters are consuming information differently than older voters and less reachable through conventional media outlets. This is where Democrats have a tremendous opportunity—if they are willing to invest the time. There is now more clarity about what matters to black voters. Trump remains a symptom of the larger issues impacting black people every day. His racism has exposed the ugliness and hatred we thought had changed over time, but he simply picked at the scab over deep wounds that had never been healed. In other words, he alone is not the problem (though he is certainly a big problem). Democrats need to recognize that. The party will be hard pressed to continue to get young black votes if they aren’t willing to treat the root cause instead of just the symptom. Young black voters are dynamic and independent. And they are responding to their environment with a different kind of urgency. They want diverse politicians who will not only address Trump, but all of the issues that impact their lives, and the well-being of their families and communities. Shropshire notes that, ultimately, black voters want candidates, progressives in particular, to be having direct conversations with them about what matters. These conversations need to happen early and often with an eye toward helping people understand how they remain engaged after elections. “There’s a need to talk with folks about what happens after the election. What’s the accountability measures for people that we elect? What are the engagement opportunities for voters after they leave the polls?” Shropshire said. “A healthy democracy can’t just be that people show up and vote. They have to be engaged in the policy, legislative, issue fights that actually move the agenda that got discussed during the campaign.” Today’s black voters want and expect more from politicians than empty promises and an expectation that they will vote for Democrats. Not only do they want change—they want a candidate and political party to lead on issues of racial and economic injustice and to demonstrate that they are willing to work on behalf of the things that black communities say are most important for them. Black PAC has started the long overdue conversation to ask black voters what they want. And black voters are responding. The question is whether or not the Democratic Party will listen going forward.