Hillary Clinton's Continual Fascination with the Non-Existent "Center"

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday February 02, 2016 · 9:14 PM PST

2016/02/02 · 21:14

Hillary Clinton has a thing for the mythical “center,” where disagreeing parties sit down and work our nations problems out like adults. It’s a nice idea — you could call it a warm purple space. Problem is, this center doesn’t exist in today’s politics. Yet Hillary regularly invokes it her public utterances, making her sound uninformed of our nation’s history and current day reality.

For example, last week Ta-Nehisi Coates called her out on an ahistorical statement on reconstruction she made at the 1/25/16 Candidates Forum. Regarding the loss to nation posed by Lincoln’s death, she said:

But instead, you know, we had Reconstruction, we had the re-instigation of segregation and Jim Crow. We had people in the South feeling totally discouraged and defiant. So, I really do believe he could have very well put us on a different path.

In other words, the myth is that people abandoned the center, and we didn’t solve our problems. But that was only a myth. As Coates points out, there was no center to be abandoned. Instead, there was a bloody conflict with former slave-holders who were “discouraged and defiant” because they wanted nothing to do with black citizenship.

[T]he fact that a presidential candidate would imply that Jim Crow and Reconstruction were equal, that the era of lynching and white supremacist violence would have been prevented had that same violence not killed Lincoln, and that the violence was simply the result of rancor, the absence of a forgiving spirit, and an understandably “discouraged” South is chilling.

Hillary dipped into Centrist myth again today with Chris Matthews:

We've got to get back to the middle. We've got to get back to the big center and solving problems. That's how we make progress in America. I'm proud to be in a line of Democratic presidents who just got in there and fought it out…I know how hard it is, and I totally appreciate how exciting it can be to be involved in a campaign that really just puts out these great big ideas. But I want folks to just stop and think, no matter what age you are, OK, we agree on getting the economy going. We agree on raising income. We agree on combatting climate change. We agree on universal health-care. Who has the track record? Who's got things done? Who can actually produce the results you want for you and your family, and for our country?

There is so much going on here. Let’s go piece by piece:

1. HRC: “We've got to get back to the big center and solving problems. That's how we make progress in America.”

Hillary got the verb tense wrong. That was how we made progress in the era of liberal consensus, the 1940s-1960s or so, when the federal government did big problem-solving things like World War II, the interstates, GI Bill, collection of adequate tax revenue, Medicare, EPA, etc. But that era is long gone. Like long, long gone. There is no consensus about government problem-solving. Since the late 1970s, the right has wanted to eliminate the government. And since 1995, Republican Congresses have reflexively blocked any and everything their Democratic brethren propose.

We are in a time of GOP-imposed gridlock — there is no center. Hillary’s prescription is forty years out of date.

So what to do? Well, the US has made progress in times of no center. We eliminated slavery. We recognized unions and gave working people respect & decent pay. The way forward toward these goals was not consensus but struggle. David Dayen offers advice applicable for today:

[T]he best theory of change, the one that’s most tangible to people, is to express your beliefs and preferences consistently until you find enough allies to make it happen. It may never happen – politics is a tough business – but there aren’t many alternatives.

Not surprisingly, Hillary doesn’t follow this plan.

2. HRC: “I'm proud to be in a line of Democratic presidents who just got in there and fought it out.”

Well, actually she’s not in a line of Democratic presidents. Not yet.

3. HRC: “OK, we agree on getting the economy going. We agree on raising income. We agree on combatting climate change. We agree on universal health-care.”

In truth we don’t agree on these things. The GOP rejects all of them. There is no “center” in American politics where these points of agreement are accepted. The only way to get needed government action in these vital areas is to out-organize and defeat the GOP. Hillary offers no advice or program on how to accomplish that.

Instead, she offers bromides on “getting back to the big center” that distract from the real work we must do if we are to save our country.

Hillary Clinton is a very smart and accomplished person. But she has consistently refused to accept difficult realities about the US, preferring a happy myth about the center and warm purple spaces to cold and confrontational reality. It’s almost childish. It’s certainly frustrating for those of us who know the urgency of change.

Hillary needs to rid herself of the center fetish if she wants to be an effective leader.

I’ll close with this line from the Coates piece:

It really isn’t too much to say, if you’re going to govern a country, you should know its history.

Erica Garner Endorses Bernie Sanders

mightymouse

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday January 29, 2016 · 1:04 PM PST

2016/01/29 · 13:04

Erica Garner, daughter of Eric Garner, slain by the NY Police in 2014 in what was called a homicide, writes in the Washington Post:

Black lives like my father’s should matter. That’s why I’m endorsing Bernie Sanders.

If our lives really mattered, we’d have equal access to decent jobs, good schools and affordable housing. If our lives mattered in this country, we’d have equal access to clean air, clean water and real investment in black neighborhoods. If black lives mattered in America, those who routinely brutalize us wouldn’t be the ones paid, with our tax dollars, to keep us safe.

I trusted establishment Democrats who claimed to represent me, only to later watch them ignore and explain away the injustice of my father’s death. I trusted the system; then I watched as politicians on both sides of the aisle — from Chicago’s Democratic Mayor Rahm Emanuel to Michigan’s Republican Gov. Rick Snyder — disregard the will of the people they were elected to represent and abdicate their responsibility to protect them. I’ve watched as our system criminalizes blackness while allowing Wall Street to bilk the American people with impunity.

...

We aren’t the first generation of black Americans to rise up and demand our human right to life, and we won’t be the last. But I know a better world is possible. I know that once we come together, we are powerful beyond imagination. Sen. Sanders knows this too. He’s learning from us, working with us and respecting the power of we, the people, over the established political machine.

I remember another candidate who dared me to believe in hope and change. His opponents said he wasn’t ready for leadership. They said he couldn’t win. He said, “Yes, we can.” And we did.

It’s a powerful piece — go read the whole thing.

Dear Health Insurance Incrementalists: What is There to be Afraid of, Really?

mightymouse

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday January 27, 2016 · 7:43 AM PST

2016/01/27 · 07:43

Is it wrong for Bernie to advocate strongly for Single-Payer so soon after ACA? I was taken by this comment by Brainwrap in his diary yesterday.

Brainwrap said:

I’m not saying that I prefer incrementalism, I’m saying that I just don’t see a complete overhaul as being doable, especially so soon after the ACA already caused a major overhaul.

Lemme put it this way: The ACA gave us half a loaf. I think it’ll take another 5 years or so for the dust to settle before we can even try for the other half...but I do think we can make incremental improvements in the meantime.

Brainwrap’s argument here is not against Single-Payer altogether. Rather, the argument is that changing to a Single-Payer system so soon after ACA was installed would be a mistake. But — going for Single-Payer in five years would not be a mistake.

It strikes me that there’s a misunderstanding here - it’s very unlikely we will go for Single-Payer in 2017. The sudden wrenching change incrementalists fear likely will not occur, regardless of Sanders’ advocacy. The only way we would do that is if a very, very good thing happens this November. Let’s look at a few scenarios:

1. Hillary wins the presidency, GOP maintains hold of the House: If this happens, there will be no push for Single-Payer and no incremental improvements. “WE GET NOTHING,” as the man said. The only impact of Bernie’s advocacy of Single-Payer will be that many will have heard the concept & understood it better. That may provide some benefit down the road.

2. Hillary wins the presidency, Dems take both houses of Congress: This is less likely than #1. Again, there will be no wrenching transformation to Single-Payer, because Hillary doesn’t support it. Hopefully there will be incremental improvements. Perhaps we will get “on the road to Single-Payer,” to use the expression. The impact of Bernie’s advocacy of Single-Payer in the campaign will again likely be a greater understanding & acceptance of the concept, which may impact what incremental changes people support. And people may remember Single-Payer down the road as the frustrating weaknesses of the ACA approach become more apparent.

3. Bernie wins the presidency, GOP maintains hold of the House: As in case #1, WE GET NOTHING through the legislative process. There will not be the immediate wrenching shift that the incrementalists fear. Nor with there be the improvements to ACA the incrementalists want. ACA as it stand now will still be the law of the land. We will marinate in that reality a few more years.

But what’s interesting is how Bernie will handle it. This will be a true test of his theory that the way to make fundamental change is to rally the people. Will he rally the people for two years? How will he do that? Will it be effective re winning back Congress in 2018? Based on his success in polling & fundraising, he has ability in this area. I don’t dismiss his chances — I would love to see it. But it will very much be a test.

A good debate question for Bernie right now is, “How will you advance your bold agenda if you win the presidency but the GOP continues to hold Congress?”

4. Bernie wins the presidency, Dems take both houses of Congress: This is the nightmare scenario for incrementalists — there may indeed be wrenching change in the near future. And, granting Brainwrap his due (he certainly knows more about this than I do), it might create some problems for people. One hopes they are short-term.

But really, this is an unlikely event. It only happens if large numbers of people — including people who usually don’t participate — get fired up about Bernie’s message and come out to vote in November. In other words, we win Congress because of Bernie’s promises to fight for Single-Payer, etc.

The question for incrementalists — Is that such a bad thing? We would have won Congress! Yes, we would have won Congress on a promise to make a change you think should be postponed, but think of all the good the D Congress entails.

The nightmare scenario for incrementalists is actually a great thing for America.

Thanks for reading.

"If You’re Going to Govern a Country, You Should Know its History" - Ta-Nehisi Coates on Clinton

mightymouse

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday January 26, 2016 · 12:55 PM PST

2016/01/26 · 12:55

Ta-Nehisi Coates has been critical of our Democratic candidates of late. First, he chastised Bernie Sanders for dismissing reparations for African-Americans even though Bernie advances other seemingly unreachable goals:

I thought that Bernie Sanders, the candidate of single-payer health insurance, of the dissolution of big banks, of free higher education, was interested both in being elected and in advancing the debate beyond his own candidacy. I thought the importance of Sanders’s call for free tuition at public universities lay not just in telling citizens that which is actually workable, but in showing them that which we must struggle to make workable. I thought Sanders’s campaign might remind Americans that what is imminently doable and what is morally correct are not always the same things, and while actualizing the former we can’t lose sight of the latter.

This article provoked a lot of pushback from Sanders’ supporters. Some claimed Clinton partisanship was behind this.

Apparently it’s not so simple. This morning Coates posted a sizzling response to Hillary’s ill-taken statement last night on Reconstruction. The comment in question, which came at the end of her statement of admiration for Abraham Lincoln, is here:

You know, [Lincoln] was willing to reconcile and forgive. And I don't know what our country might have been like had he not been murdered, but I bet that it might have been a little less rancorous, a little more forgiving and tolerant, that might possibly have brought people back together more quickly.

But instead, you know, we had Reconstruction, we had the re-instigation of segregation and Jim Crow. We had people in the South feeling totally discouraged and defiant. So, I really do believe he could have very well put us on a different path.

Coates puts Hillary’s line of thought here in historical context:

Clinton, whether she knows it or not, is retelling a racist—though popular—version of American history which held sway in this country until relatively recently. Sometimes going under the handle of “The Dunning School,” and other times going under the “Lost Cause” label, the basic idea is that Reconstruction was a mistake brought about by vengeful Northern radicals. The result was a savage and corrupt government which in turn left former Confederates, as Clinton puts, it “discouraged and defiant.”

…

[U]ntil relatively recently, this self-serving version of history was dominant. It is almost certainly the version fed to Hillary Clinton during her school years, and possibly even as a college student. Hillary Clinton is no longer a college student. And the fact that a presidential candidate would imply that Jim Crow and Reconstruction were equal, that the era of lynching and white supremacist violence would have been prevented had that same violence not killed Lincoln, and that the violence was simply the result of rancor, the absence of a forgiving spirit, and an understandably “discouraged” South is chilling.

Coates’ closes with an observation on the frustrating process of having to vote for the lesser of two evils:

In the American system of government, refusing to vote for the less-than-ideal is a vote for something much worse. Even when you don’t choose, you choose. But you can choose with your skepticism fully intact. You can choose in full awareness of the insufficiency of your options, without elevating those who would have us forget into prophets. You can choose and still push, demanding more. It really isn’t too much to say, if you’re going to govern a country, you should know its history.

It’s a powerful critique. (Go read the whole thing.) I imagine Hillary, if she had thought about it, would realize that she does not support the racist version of post-Civil War history and would have chosen different words to illustrate the loss to the nation of Lincoln’s assassination. She may well issue a clarifying comment (as Sanders has done regarding Planned Parenthood). Regardless, it’s excellent that Mr. Coates took this opportunity to make the point that our nation’s past is a lot more painful and shameful than some would like to believe. One hopes the day comes when our national candidates can speak freely about it, speak truth to power, and not resort to “both sides at fault” fairy tales.

As for his critique of Sanders on Reparations, I believe Coates overlooks one key aspect. The bold pieces of Sanders’ agenda — single-payer health insurance, large-scale infrastructure spending, bank restructuring, etc. — are all popular among large swaths of the electorate. Reparations is not, to the best of my knowledge. It’s not surprising that no national politician currently supports the idea, even though there is an excellent argument that reparations are deserved for African-Americans (and American Indians).

This primary is fun. Lots to talk about.

Rahm Emmanuel Finally Faces Serious Trouble After Emblematic 25-year "Inside Dem" Career

mightymouse

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday December 31, 2015 · 8:05 AM PST

2015/12/31 · 08:05

For many of us “better Dems” people, Rahm Emmanuel has exemplified much of what our party has been doing wrong for the past 25 years. He is all about getting money, he has contempt for the left, moving the window doesn’t matter, it’s all about co-opting GOP positions, etc., etc.

In his career he’s been a successful fundraiser for Bill Clinton, a strategic advisor in the Clinton White House, an investment banker (where he made $18 million dollars in a 2.5-year period), a Congressman, head of DCCC, Chief of Staff in the Obama White House, and now Chicago Mayor. He’s had a major impact on events.

I’m writing this diary to highlight a new article by Rick Perlstein, The Sudden But Well-Deserved Fall of Rahm Emanuel (New Yorker).

Nine months later [following Rahm’s re-election], Chicagoans—and Democrats nationally—are suffering buyer’s remorse. Last month, a Cook County judge ordered the release of a shocking dashcam video of a black seventeen-year-old named Laquan McDonald being shot sixteen times by a policeman while he was walking away. Five days later, the officer was charged with murder. The charge came after four hundred days of public inaction, and only hours before the video’s release. Of almost four hundred police shootings of civilians investigated by the city’s Independent Police Review Authority since 2007, only one was found to be unjustified. So the suspicion was overwhelming that the officer would not have faced discipline at all had officials not feared a riot—especially after it was learned that McDonald’s family had been paid five million dollars from city coffers without ever having filed a lawsuit. Mayor Emanuel claims that he never saw the video. Given that he surely would not have been reëlected had any of this come out before the balloting, a recent poll showed that only seventeen per cent of Chicagoans believe him. And a majority of Chicagoans now think he should resign.

The shocking revelation of the video of the shooting of Laquan McDonald is what’s done it. But he has done many things to tick off Chicagoans:

Since [2011], there have been so many scandals in Emanuel’s administration which have failed to gain traction that it’s hard to single them out. One signature idea was lengthening Chicago’s school day by thirty per cent—controversial because he proposed to compensate teachers only two per cent more for the extra work. The Chicago public schools’ inspector general was soon investigating allegations that a local pastor linked to Emanuel was arranging buses to pack public hearings with supporters of the idea, paying at least two “protesters” twenty-five to fifty dollars each.

and

Byrd-Bennett had taken over the job from an unfortunate gentleman named Jean-Claude Brizard, who was forced to take the fall for the unpopularity of another of Emanuel’s sketchy initiatives: closing fifty-four schools, many of which were in the city’s black neighborhoods. Why were these pillars of community stability shuttered? Suspicions of venal motives abounded, but nobody could really be sure. A fact-check by Chicago’s public-radio station, WBEZ, discovered that many of the facts the city gave about the decision were not accurate. But don’t confuse that inquiry with a joint investigation by WBEZ and the schools magazine Catalyst Chicago which discovered that Emanuel’s claim about high-school-graduation rates—that they would increase by fifteen percentage points—was also a mirage. (Dropouts are reassigned to for-profit online education programs that demand very little work, and then are rewarded diplomas from the school they last attended or one near where they live.) Or with the multi-part series by Chicago magazine that blew the Mayor’s claims about Chicago’s supposedly declining homicide rates out of the water, too. (One method: categorizing homicide victims as “noncriminal deaths.”)

It’s hard to bring down one so well-supported as Mr. Emmanuel. One can only hope ….

Hillary's ISIS Speech is a List of Unreachable Goals

mightymouse

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday November 19, 2015 · 10:26 PM PST

2015/11/19 · 22:26

Here are the salient goals Hillary Clinton laid out at her address to Council of Foreign Relations today followed by my comments. There are many pieces to her strategy, several of which seem unlikely to happen as she proposes.

Here is what she calls for:

ISIS operates across three mutually reinforcing dimensions—a physical enclave in Iraq and Syria, an international terrorist network that includes affiliates across the region and beyond, and an ideological movement of radical jihadism. We have to target and defeat all three.

An immediate war against an urgent enemy and a generational struggle against an ideology with deep roots will not be easily torn out. It will require sustained commitment in every pillar of American power. This is a worldwide fight, and America must lead it.

That’s a huge commitment to make. Hillary assumes we can control things that are not really in our control. The phrasing here seems to lack understanding of the subtlety of working in other countries.

A key obstacle standing in the way is a shortage of good intelligence about ISIS and its operations. So we need an immediate intelligence surge in the region, including technical assets, Arabic speakers with deep expertise in the Middle East, an even closer partnership with regional intelligence services.

This seems the most doable of all the goals. And one we should definitely put resources into.

On the Iraqi side of the border, Kurdish forces have fought bravely to defend their own lands and to retake towns from ISIS, but the Iraqi National Army has struggled and it’s going to take more work to get it up to fighting shape. As part of that process we may have to give our own troops advising and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local units and helping target airstrikes.

She calls for more nation-building in Iraq. Haven’t we learned the futility of that? It’s questionable how capable the Iraqi National Army will become.

We need to put sustained pressure on the government in Baghdad to gets its political house in order, move forward with national reconciliation, and finally, stand up a national guard. Baghdad needs to accept, even embrace, arming Sunni and Kurdish forces in the war against ISIS. But if Baghdad won’t do that, the coalition should do so directly.

This in an interesting passage. She sets the goal of pushing Iraq to become the state we want it to be. Which again sounds far-fetched — we have plenty of evidence that we can’t mold Iraq to our wishes. But then she says, if Iraq won’t arm these people, we will. Meaning we get more involved on a lower level with the various parties that in many cases have proven difficult to work with. And we make an even larger commitment.

On the Syrian side, the big obstacle to getting more ground forces to engage ISIS beyond the Syrian Kurds, who are already deep in the fight is that the viable Sunni opposition groups remain understandably preoccupied with fighting Assad, who, let us remember, has killed many more Syrians than the terrorists have. But they are increasingly under threat from ISIS as well, so we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership, and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well.

So we will solve the Syrian Civil War and do nation-building in Syria as well. It sounds naïve. Will this happen? What reason do we have to think it will, other than we think that it should? What if it doesn’t?

And Russia and Iran have to face the fact that continuing to prop up a vicious dictator will not bring stability.

The goal is to get Iran and Russia to share our vision and to realize that supporting Assad is wrong. Even though we have proven to be spectacularly wrong about the Middle East on multiple instances. Will Russia and Iran (whom Hillary was disparaging and threatening just last month) do what we want just because we say they must? This again sounds naïve.

Now, much of this strategy on both sides of the border hinges on the roles of our Arab and Turkish partners, and we must get them to carry their share of the burden with military intelligence and financial contributions, as well as using their influence with fighters and tribes in Iraq and Syria.

It’s hard not be sarcastic. Is she referring to our Arab partners who supply funds for Islamic extremists? The record here is not good. Again, this goal runs counter to proven reality.

As difficult as it may be, we need to get Turkey to stop bombing Kurdish fighters in Syria who are battling ISIS and become a full partner in our coalition efforts against ISIS.

Turkey, like all the other players here, has its own view of what’s important. Sure, it would be wonderful if they would make nice with the Kurds and do what we want. But nations follow their own ideas. Turkey is very worried about the Kurds.

We cannot view Iran and ISIS as separate challenges. Regional politics are too interwoven. Raising the confidence of our Arab partners and raising the costs to Iran for bad behavior will contribute to a more effective fight against ISIS.

It’s notable how she weaves antipathy toward Iran into this. So we’re going to be punishing Iran (how?) at the same time as we are cajoling, molding, buying off all these other players. It’s an immense commitment.

Later on she drops this:

We have to join with our partners to do the patient, steady work of empowering moderates and marginalizing extremists, supporting democratic institutions and the rule of law, creating economic growth that supports stability, working to curb corruption, helping train effective and accountable law enforcement, intelligence, and counterterrorism services.

On top of all the nation-building, punishing, cajoling, civil-war solving, etc., we’re going to be creating economic growth that supports stability in Syria and Iraq, and I guess in surrounding areas where support for ISIS comes from. We’ll definitely need a magic wand for this one.

This speech isn’t a realistic strategy. It’s a wish list.

mightymouse

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday November 06, 2015 · 6:41 AM PST

2015/11/06 · 06:41

This chart shows total numbers of Democrats and Republicans in state legislatures over time. We've got a situation here, folks.

(I hope this does not violate copyright. If so, I'll remove it.)

It's bad. I mean, we knew it was bad, but the graphic brings home just how much we've lost. From the late 50's - late 70's Dems had a 3-to-2 or even 2-1 advantage in state legislatures. Since then we've fallen steadily, to the point where we are behind, and not by a little. Thirty-five years of losing ground to the freak show that is today's GOP. The entire adult life - or more - of most Americans.

It comes from this article: Has Obama elected more Republicans than any human being in history? Kind of.

Yes, it's a dopey title. The problem is much bigger than Obama. Forget the title and focus on the facts. Why is this happening? This is terrible - we need our party to become functional again.

If you missed it, check out Chris Reeves' excellent diary and comments from yesterday. It was about how we got here and how we get out of this mess.

One suggestion - it would great if one of the dkos front-pagers could do a weekly "round-up" of diaries about local issues, local party-building, etc. (Like Meteor Blades with green diaries.) This could encourage more people to write diaries on the subject and, ultimately, more people to get involved in local politics, which is where we're losing.

Third Quarter Fundraising - Bernie Leads the Way in Small Donations

mightymouse

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday October 16, 2015 · 7:13 AM PDT

2015/10/16 · 07:13

Third quarter fundraising data from the Federal Election Commission is out.

How Much the Presidential Candidates Raised from Real People

Political outsiders who swept to the top of the polls are also proving they can win the money race: Though Hillary Clinton leads in fundraising, Ben Carson and Bernie Sanders, who have little support from their party's establishment, had big fundraising quarters thanks to large numbers of small donations.

Hillary got $23.95 million from large donations (>$200) and $5.19 million in small donations (<$200). 18 percent of her funds came from small donations.

In contrast, Bernie got $6.02 million in large donations and $20.19 million in small donations. 77 percent of his funds came from small donations.

These percentage breakouts are similar to the second quarter, though the totals are not - Bernie's third quarter numbers rose, while Hillary's declined.

Funding for the other D candidates is miniscule by comparison to these two.

The Republican who pulled in the most is Ben Carson. His campaign got $8.29 million in large donations and $12.43 million in small donations.

Dollar-wise, Bernie is the man of the people!

Howard Dean's Logic: Is Putin Coming for Alaska?

mightymouse

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday September 01, 2015 · 5:44 PM PDT

2015/09/01 · 17:44

I know Dean's endorsement of Hillary was already diaried today.

But this bit (from Dean's piece in the WaPo) jumped out at me just now:

If a candidate can’t take a hit from the New York Times or Fox News, how are they going to stand up to Putin when he demands Alaska back?

He's right - We definitely need someone to keep Putin from repo-ing Alaska.

Poll

77 votes Show Results

What is the likelihood of Putin taking back Alaska?

77 votes Vote Now!

What is the likelihood of Putin taking back Alaska?

Very likely

2 votes

Far-fetched

23 votes

Not if Hillary keeps him at bay.

9 votes

Trump is probably in negotiations with him right now.

20 votes

I don't know, but I bet he can see Alaska from his house.

23 votes

The Oligarchy Rolls On: "Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving" - NYT

mightymouse

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday August 01, 2015 · 8:37 PM PDT

2015/08/01 · 20:37

Hello folks. I wanted to highlight this must-read story from the New York Times, Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving, which gets right to the heart of the rising power of the richest to dominate our elections.

Fewer than four hundred families are responsible for almost half the money raised in the 2016 presidential campaign, a concentration of political donors that is unprecedented in the modern era.

The article, based on recent Federal Election Commission & IRS reports, is accompanied by two excellent graphics, that cover the biggest individual donors and the recipients of their largesse (mostly to Republicans, of course), and which candidates are raking in the most

Even if you don't read the article, check the graphics.

It's pretty frightening.

“The question is whether we are in a new Gilded Age or well beyond it — to a Platinum Age,” said Michael J. Malbin, president of the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks the flow of campaign money.

One of the donors speaks for himself.

“In the donor world, it is primarily a love of economic freedom,” said Chart Westcott, a Dallas private equity investor who has contributed $200,000 to Unintimidated PAC, a group backing Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. “That’s the biggest drive for most donors — more prosperity for the country as a whole, as well as for themselves.”

That's whose paying for our elections - self-centered believers in wrong-headed economics.

As a rule, almost all of the Republican money comes via very large donations to SuperPACs and much less in smaller donations (under $2700, I believe) to the actual campaigns . E.g., Jeb Bush has pulled in $120 million, only $11 million of which came through campaign. The opposite is true for Democrats. Hillary Clinton, the Dem pulling in the most, got $47 million through her campaign and $20 million from SuperPACs. Bernie Sanders, of course, has no SuperPAC at all.

The top-five money raisers (SuperPAC + campaign $) are, in order, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio, and Bernie Sanders (doing it old school).

The guy who's gotten the biggest individual donations is clown car favorite Ted Cruz:

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a favorite of the Tea Party movement, has raised the most cash from the fewest donors. A collection of super PACs supporting Mr. Cruz raised $37 million, nearly all of it from three families. Robert Mercer, a deeply private hedge fund investor from New York, contributed $11 million, making him the top known political donor in the country so far this election cycle.
The Wilks family of Texas, which earned billions in the fracking boom, gave $15 million to back Mr. Cruz’s bid. Toby Neugebauer, a private equity investor in Puerto Rico — a home he adopted two years ago that has more favorable tax laws — gave $10 million.

The people giving the most money include energy company owners, financiers, sports team owners, and frackers.

It's nuts. These people have orders of magnitude more say in the make-up of our government than we do.

Poll

16 votes Show Results

My campaign donations are motivated by a love of economic freedom.

16 votes Vote Now!

My campaign donations are motivated by a love of economic freedom.

Yes

1 vote

13 votes

Perhaps

2 votes

SEIU/1199 all out for Cuomo/Hochul. Yay.

mightymouse

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday September 06, 2014 · 11:47 AM PDT

2014/09/06 · 11:47

New York state politics at its finest (1199 is the big SEIU-affiliated hospital-workers' union in New York):

Cuomo-Hochul ‘First Priority’ For 1199/SEIU

Getting its members out to the polls and voting for Gov. Andrew Cuomo and former Rep. Kathy Hochul come Tuesday’s primary is the “first priority” for 1199/SEIU’s turnout operation, the labor union’s political director Kevin Finnegan said.
Finnegan who will be on Capital Tonight this evening, told me in an interview that the union’s much-vaunted GOTV campaign begins this weekend following a mail and telephone program.

“All of the staff will be completely dedicated to the various elections across the state,” Finnegan said. “The top of the ticket — the governor and Kathy Hochul — are first priority. We’ve done a mail program and a telephone program to our 275,000 members in New York.”

And why is a union - supposedly a bastion of liberalism - supporting a corrupt, Republican-enabling Governor?

The labor union is a key backer for Cuomo. It helped broker his endorsement from the labor-aligned Working Families Party in May after Cuomo sought 1199/SEIU’s input — literally giving the health-care union a seat at the table — during the process to overhaul the state’s costly Medicaid program.

Basically the Working Families Party is an 1199 access-to-power vehicle.

Filibuster: Clueless Dem Senate Staffer Says Why Reform is Icky, Advocates Minority Rule

mightymouse

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday January 26, 2013 · 8:15 AM PST

2013/01/26 · 08:15

Well, as most of us cynics expected, the Senate didn't fix the filibuster/cloture mess. Thus the Obama presidency will continue to be stifled by McConnell and his crew. More good bills will die or be watered down on account of the extra-constitutional requirement for 60 votes. More judicial seats and executive branch positions will remain vacant.

The American people will suffer. Even though Democrats "control" the upper chamber.

But not to worry, my fellow cynics! Over at TPM, an anonymous Senate staffer writes to say everything is rosy. The only problem is we progressives don't get it:

All Senate Democrats agree that rules reform is essential. Now we appear to be on the brink of that, and the “fix the Senate crowd” is dismayed. Unlike last time Reid isn’t proposing just a “gentleman’s agreement,” these are real changes to Rule 22. And these appear to have minority support. This is a big deal.

Yay! A big deal! Real rule changes! Only problem is they don't accomplish anything significant. Per Tom Harkin:

"It's a baby step. Really, it's a baby baby step," Harkin told reporters Thursday before heading into a caucus meeting on the filibuster plan. ... "I said to President Obama back in August ... and I said to him the night before the election, I said to him, 'Look, if you get reelected, if we don't do something significant about filibuster reform, you might as well take a four-year vacation,'" Harkin said. "This is not significant."

Poll

47 votes Show Results

Majority rule is a good thing.

47 votes Vote Now!

Majority rule is a good thing.

Yes

44 votes

3 votes

Newer
Older

RSS