August 10, 11 and 12, 2017


NEWS AND VIEWS


HAIL, KING TRUMP!!! THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THIS IS ONLY HYPOTHETICAL AND, I HAVE NO DOUBT, AN ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE TRUMP’S POSITION IN THE POLLS. THIS IS “RED MEAT” TO UNITE HIS ALT-RIGHT FOLLOWERS IN AND OUTSIDE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-majority-of-gop-would-back-2020-election-delay-if-trump-proposed-it/
CBS NEWS August 10, 2017, 2:06 PM
Poll: Majority of Republicans would back 2020 election delay if Trump proposed it

If President Trump proposed delaying the 2020 election until the U.S. could ensure that only eligible citizens were able to vote, 52 percent of Republicans would support the move, according to a survey from a pair of academics reported Thursday in the Washington Post. The number of Republicans supporting the hypothetical delay jumped to 56 percent when respondents were told that both Mr. Trump and Republicans in Congress proposed the move.

The survey, from Yeshiva University psychology professor Ariel Malka and University of Pennsylvania communication professor Yphtach Lelkes, surveyed 1,325 Americans between June 5 and June 20 this year. The results that purport to document Republican views are based on the responses of 650 GOP or GOP-leaning independents.

Quick with a caveat, the pair noted that their survey "is only measuring reactions to a hypothetical situation."

Trump's voter fraud hunt hits a brick wall
Play VIDEO
Trump's voter fraud hunt hits a brick wall

"Were Trump to seriously propose postponing the election, there would be a torrent of opposition, which would most likely include prominent Republicans," they wrote in the Post. "Financial markets would presumably react negatively to the potential for political instability. And this is to say nothing of the various legal and constitutional complications that would immediately become clear. Citizens would almost certainly form their opinions amid such tumult, which does not at all resemble the context in which our survey was conducted."

"Nevertheless, we do not believe that these findings can be dismissed out of hand," they added. "Postponing the 2020 presidential election is not something that Trump or anyone in his administration has even hinted at, but for many in his constituency floating such an idea may not be a step too far."

The survey also revealed the extent to which Mr. Trump's base has embraced his claim that millions of ineligible voters in the 2016 election deprived him of a popular vote victory.

Forty-seven percent of GOP or GOP-leaning respondents surveyed said they believe Mr. Trump won the popular vote. (In fact, he trailed Hillary Clinton in the national popular vote by roughly three million ballots.)

Sixty-eight percent of the same group said they believe millions of illegal immigrants voted in 2016, and 73 percent said they believe voter fraud happens somewhat or very often. There is no evidence of such widespread fraud.


VIDEO -- http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-majority-of-gop-would-back-2020-election-delay-if-trump-proposed-it/
Trump's voter fraud hunt hits a brick wall
July 1, 2017, 10:51 PM
Trump's effort to expose alleged voting fraud is running into a brick wall. The president has insisted that 3 to 5 million illegal votes were cast for Hillary Clinton, and he has appointed a special commission to try and prove it. Paula Reid has details.


WAR GAMES. WHAT FUN THAT MUST BE! I HOPE KIM DOESN’T GET EXCITED AND START SHOOTING WITH REAL WEAPONS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chinas-president-urges-calm-as-trump-says-us-military-is-locked-and-loaded/
AP August 12, 2017, 9:56 AM
China's president urges calm as Trump says U.S. military is "locked and loaded"

SEOUL, South Korea -- Chinese President Xi Jinping made a plea for cool-headedness over escalating tensions between the U.S. and North Korea in a phone conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday, urging both sides to avoid words or actions that could worsen the situation.

The call came after Mr. Trump unleashed a slew of fresh threats against North Korea on Friday, declaring the U.S. military "locked and loaded" and warning North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that he "will regret it fast" if he takes any action against U.S. territories or allies.

Mr. Trump has pushed China to pressure North Korea to halt a nuclear weapons program that is nearing the capability of targeting the United States. China is the North's biggest economic partner and source of aid, but says it alone can't compel Pyongyang to end its nuclear and missile programs.

The White House said in a statement that Mr. Trump and Xi "agreed North Korea must stop its provocative and escalatory behavior." It also said that the two "reiterated their mutual commitment to denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." But White House readouts of calls with foreign leaders in the Trump era are notoriously sparse in detail.

State-run China Central Television quoted Xi as telling Trump the "relevant parties must maintain restraint and avoid words and deeds that would exacerbate the tension on the Korean Peninsula."

Eye Opener: Trump's new warning as the world holds its breath
Play VIDEO
Eye Opener: Trump's new warning as the world holds its breath

But restraint was not the word of the day on Friday as Mr. Trump sent out a cascade of unscripted statements, including what appeared to be another red line - the mere utterance of threats - that would trigger a U.S. attack against North Korea and "big, big trouble" for Kim.

North Korea's Minju Joson newspaper, meanwhile, lashed back at the U.S. in an editorial Saturday.

"The powerful revolutionary Paektusan army of the DPRK, capable of fighting any war the U.S. wants, is now on the standby to launch fire into its mainland, waiting for an order of final attack," it said. DPRK stands for North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The tough talk capped a week in which long-standing tensions between the countries risked abruptly boiling over.

New United Nations sanctions condemning the North's rapidly developing nuclear program drew fresh ire and threats from Pyongyang. Trump, responding to a report that U.S. intelligence indicates Pyongyang can now put a nuclear warhead on its long-range missiles, vowed to rain down "fire and fury" if challenged.

The North then came out with a threat to lob four intermediate-range "Hwasong-12" missiles near Guam, a tiny U.S. territory some 2,000 miles from Pyongyang.

At the epicenter of the rhetoric, Mr. Trump's New Jersey golf course, the president seemed to put Kim on notice, saying, "If he utters one threat in the form of an overt threat - which by the way he has been uttering for years and his family has been uttering for years - or he does anything with respect to Guam or anyplace else that's an American territory or an American ally, he will truly regret it and he will regret it fast."

Asked if the U.S. was going to war, he said cryptically, "I think you know the answer to that."

But Mr. Trump's comments did not appear to be backed by significant military mobilization on either side of the Pacific, and an important, quiet diplomatic channel remained open. As a precaution, Japan deployed missile defense batteries under the path a North Korean missile might take.

Life on the streets of the North Korean capital, Pyongyang, also remained calm.

There have been no air raid drills or cars in camouflage netting as has been the case during previous crises. State-run media ensures that the population gets the North Korean side of the story, but doesn't convey any sense of international concern about the situation.

U.S. officials say they will be going ahead with long-scheduled military exercises with South Korea. Pyongyang says it will be ready to send its missile launch plan to Kim for approval just before or as the drills begin.

Called Ulchi-Freedom Guardian*, the exercises are expected to run Aug. 21-31 and involve tens of thousands of American and South Korean troops on the ground and in the sea and air. North Korea claims the exercises are a rehearsal for war, but Washington and Seoul say they are necessary to deter North Korean aggression.

Mr. Trump began his Friday barrage with an especially fiery tweet: "Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!"

He later retweeted a posting from U.S. Pacific Command that showed B-1B Lancer bomber planes on Guam that "stand ready to fulfill USFK's #FightTonight mission if called upon to do so." ''Fight tonight" has long been the motto of U.S. forces in South Korea to show they're always ready for combat on the Korean Peninsula.

Mr. Trump also brushed away calls for caution from other world leaders, including Germany's Angela Merkel.

"I don't see a military solution and I don't think it's called for," Merkel said Friday, calling on the U.N. Security Council to continue to address the crisis.

"I think escalating the rhetoric is the wrong answer," Merkel added.

"Let her speak for Germany," Mr. Trump said, when asked about the comment. "Perhaps she is referring to Germany. She's certainly not referring to the United States, that I can tell you."

By evening, he seemed to have mellowed a bit.

"Hopefully it'll all work out," Mr. Trump said. "Nobody loves a peaceful solution better than President Trump."

Speaking to Guam Gov. Eddie Calvo, he promised: "You are safe. We are with you a thousand percent."



WHITE NATIONALISTS VS EVERYBODY ELSE, PLUS A SEEMINGLY MURDEROUS DRIVER PURPOSELY HIT PEDESTRIANS IN THE CROWD. THIS IS ALMOST LIKE WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED “GROUP HYSTERIA.” THERE ARE “WELL OVER A THOUSAND” DEMONSTRATORS ALL TOGETHER, BUT IT IS NO LONGER A “DEMONSTRATION.” IT’S A FULL-SCALE RIOT.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/1-dead-19-injured-after-car-plows-into-protesters-in-charlottesville/
By JUSTIN CARISSIMO CBS NEWS August 12, 2017, 2:02 PM
1 dead, 19 injured after car plows into protesters in Charlottesville

One person was killed and 19 others were injured Saturday when a car plowed into a group of protesters in downtown Charlottesville, Virginia, hours after police broke up violent confrontations ahead of a scheduled rally of white nationalists.

A male suspect police say was the driver is in custody, Virginia Secretary of Public Safety Brian Moran tells CBS News, adding that Charlottesville police will keep investigating before formal charges are made.

Video of the incident showed a grey Dodge Charger plowing into counter-protesters who were marching through the city's shopping district. The force of the collision hurled several people into the air. Bystanders could be seen running in every direction while others stood by screaming for help.

Footage from another angle showed the car speeding in reverse in an attempt to flee the scene.

Photograph -- ap-17224684369015.jpg -- A vehicle drives into a group of protesters demonstrating against a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., Saturday, Aug. 12, 2017. RYAN M. KELLY/THE DAILY PROGRESS VIA AP

Those injured in the crash were transported to the University of Virginia (UVA) Medical Center, a hospital spokesperson told CBS News.

A dozen medics were seen carting the injured back and forth on stretchers at the scene.

"I am heartbroken that a life has been lost here. I urge all people of good will -- go home," Charlottesville Mayor Mike Singer said on Twitter.

White nationalists clashed with police and counter-protesters hours before the collision in Charlottesville. Alt-right activists and white supremacists planned to protest the city's decision to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from the city's Emancipation Park, but police broke up the demonstration before it began after fighting broke out.

gettyimages-830784814.jpg -- First responders tend to several people injured when a car plowed through a crowd of counter-demonstrators marching in Charlottesville, Virginia. CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY

President Trump condemned the violence in remarks Saturday afternoon.

"We're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides," he said from his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

Mr. Trump said he spoke with Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe over the phone and agreed "that the hate and division must stop and it must stop right now."

He added, "What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order, and the protection of innocent lives."

gettyimages-830804852.jpg -- The car that allegedly plowed through a crowd of protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. WIN MCNAMEE/GETTY

McAuliffe declared a state of emergency in the city Saturday to aid the state's response to the violence.

"It is now clear that public safety cannot be safeguarded without additional powers, and that the mostly out-of-state protesters have come to Virginia to endanger our citizens and property," McAuliffe said in a statement.

"I am disgusted by the hatred, bigotry and violence these protesters have brought to our state over the past 24 hours," McAuliffe said, adding that state troopers and the Virginia National Guard were providing support to local authorities.

ryan-m-kelly-the-daily-progress-2.jpg -- A car plows into a crowd in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Aug. 12, 2017. RYAN M. KELLY, THE DAILY PROGRESS

Jason Kessler, the organizer behind the "Unite the Right" rally, said he plans to sue the city for violating a court order permitting the rally to be held in the park.

"Our First Amendment rights were violated today," Kessler said by phone before the car crash. He said the city of Charlottesville and McAuliffe violated the court ruling because they "didn't like the outcome."

Some protesters who came for the "Unite the Right" rally were armed and dressed in military-like clothing, while others wore shirts with Nazi symbols and quotes from Adolf Hitler. Another read "diversity is just a genocidal scam."

Saturday's confrontation came after a large group of torch-bearing white nationalists marched through the UVA campus Friday night, after a judge issued a ruling allowing Saturday's protest to move forward.

UVA cancelled all scheduled events planned for Saturday citing "ongoing public safety concerns," but announced that the college's medical center would remain open.

"The University is monitoring the developments in Charlottesville and continues to coordinate with state and local law enforcement," the school said in a statement.

55 PHOTOS -- White supremacist rallies in Va. lead to violence


https://www.yahoo.com/news/hundreds-face-off-ahead-white-153523499.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=ecd5e8af-dc90-3332-9efb-d522bf6b8dfa&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Hundreds face off ahead of white nationalist rally
SARAH RANKIN
Associated Press August 12, 2017

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (AP) — Hundreds of people chanted, threw punches, hurled water bottles and unleashed chemical sprays on each other Saturday morning at white nationalist rally in Charlottesville.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency and police dressed in riot gear ordered people to disperse after chaotic violent clashes between white nationalists and counter protestors.

Right-wing blogger Jason Kessler had called for what he termed a "pro-white" rally to protest the city of Charlottesville's decision to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from a downtown park.

Colleen Cook, 26, stood on a curb shouting at the rally attendees to go home.

Cook, a teacher who attended the University of Virginia, said she sent her son, who is black, out of town for the weekend.

"This isn't how he should have to grow up," she said.

Cliff Erickson leaned against a fence and took in the scene. He said he thinks removing the statue amounts to erasing history and said the "counterprotesters are crazier than the alt-right."

"Both sides are hoping for a confrontation," he said.

It's the latest confrontation in Charlottesville since the city about 100 miles outside of Washington, D.C., voted earlier this year to remove a statue of Lee.

In May, a torch-wielding group that included prominent white nationalist Richard Spencer gathered around the statue for a nighttime protest, and in July, about 50 members of a North Carolina-based KKK group traveled there for a rally, where they were met by hundreds of counter-protesters.

Kessler said this week that the rally is partly about the removal of Confederate symbols but also about free speech and "advocating for white people."

"This is about an anti-white climate within the Western world and the need for white people to have advocacy like other groups do," he said in an interview.

Between rally attendees and counter-protesters, authorities were expecting as many as 6,000 people, Charlottesville police said this week.

Among those expected to attend are Confederate heritage groups, KKK members, militia groups and "alt-right" activists, who generally espouse a mix of racism, white nationalism and populism.

Both the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which track extremist groups, said the event has the potential to be the largest of its kind in at least a decade.

Officials have been preparing for the rally for months. Virginia State Police will be assisting local authorities, and a spokesman said the Virginia National Guard "will closely monitor the situation and will be able to rapidly respond and provide additional assistance if needed."

Police instituted road closures around downtown, and many businesses in the popular open-air shopping mall opted to close for the day.

Both local hospitals said they had taken precautions to prepare for an influx of patients and had extra staff on call.

There were also fights Friday night, when hundreds of white nationalists marched through the University of Virginia campus carrying torches.

A university spokesman said one person was arrested and several people were injured.

Charlottesville Mayor Michael Signer said he was disgusted that the white nationalists had come to his town and blamed President Donald Trump for inflaming racial prejudices with his campaign last year.

"I'm not going to make any bones about it. I place the blame for a lot of what you're seeing in American today right at the doorstep of the White House and the people around the president."

Charlottesville, nestled in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, is a liberal-leaning city that's home to the flagship University of Virginia and Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson.

The statue's removal is part of a broader city effort to change the way Charlottesville's history of race is told in public spaces. The city has also renamed Lee Park, where the statue stands, and Jackson Park, named for Confederate General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. They're now called Emancipation Park and Justice Park, respectively.

For now, the Lee statue remains. A group called the Monument Fund filed a lawsuit arguing that removing the statue would violate a state law governing war memorials. A judge has agreed to a temporary injunction that blocks the city from removing the statue for six months.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/torch-carrying-white-nationalists-march-through-university-of-virginia-ahead-of-rally/
By STEFAN BECKET CBS NEWS August 12, 2017, 8:01 AM
Torch-wielding white nationalists march through University of Virginia campus

Violence broke out Friday night as a large crowd of white nationalists marched through the University of Virginia (UVA) campus carrying tiki torches and chanting "you will not replace us."

The group marched ahead of a demonstration planned for Saturday to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. A federal judge issued a ruling Friday night allowing the Saturday rally to go forward.

Friday's march began around 10 p.m. at an intramural field and the crowd proceeded to a statue of Thomas Jefferson on the UVA campus. Jefferson founded the university in 1819.

2017-08-12t080132z-1893804928-rc1223b41d70-rtrmadp-3-virginia-protests.jpg
White nationalists carry torches on the grounds of the University of Virginia, on the eve of a planned Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Aug. 11, 2017. REUTERS

More than 100 alt-right activists, white nationalists and neo-Confederates chanted "white lives matter" as they faced off against counter-protesters at the statue, CBS affiliate WTVR-TV reports.

Police arrived on the scene and declared the assembly unlawful. Fights broke out between the two groups of demonstrators, with some marchers swinging their torches. Several people were injured and at least one was arrested, according to the Daily Progress, a newspaper in Charlottesville.

Follow
Tim Dodson @Tim_Dodson
As members of the white nationalist alt-right gather in front of Jefferson statue, counter protesters chant #BlackLivesMatter
10:17 PM - Aug 11, 2017 · Charlottesville, VA
108 108 Replies 2,079 2,079 Retweets 2,594 2,594 likes

Teresa Sullivan, the president of UVA, denounced the march in a statement Friday night.

"I am deeply saddened and disturbed by the hateful behavior displayed by torch-bearing protesters that marched on our Grounds this evening," she wrote. "The violence displayed on Grounds is intolerable and is entirely inconsistent with the University's values."

The white-nationalist protesters are in Charlottesville for the "Unite the Right" rally on Saturday, where officials expect between 2,000 to 6,000 people to attend the protest against the removal of the Lee statue from the city's Emancipation Park, according to the Daily Progress. More than 1,000 first responders officers will be on hand for the event, the Daily Progress reported.

The rally is being organized by Jason Kessler, a right-wing blogger. Kessler sued the city after officials said the rally must be moved from its planned location in the park. A federal judge sided with Kessler Friday night, ordering the city to allow the demonstration to go forward. The city said in a statement it would abide by the judge's order.



TRUMP IS DECIDEDLY PROFITING FROM HIS PROPERTIES WHILE IN OFFICE. HE DOESN’T EVEN TRY TO APPEAR TO DO THE RIGHT THINGS. I WANT HIM OUT!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dc-hotel-turns-2-million-profit-in-four-months/2017/08/10/23bd97f0-7e02-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html
Politics
Trump D.C. hotel turns $2 million profit in four months
By Jonathan O'Connell August 10 at 7:18 PM

Donald Trump’s company turned a $1.97 million profit at its opulent Trump International Hotel so far in 2017, dramatically beating its expectations and giving the first hard numbers to critics who charge that Trump is profiting from his presidency.

The Trump Organization had projected that it would lose $2.1 million during the first four months of 2017 as it established a new hotel and convention business in the nation’s capital, according to newly released federal documents.

Instead the hotel, with its namesake in the White House down the street, is already turning a hefty profit and charging more for its rooms than most or all of the city’s other hotels.

The $4.1 million swing from projected losses to profitability represents a 192 percent improvement over what the Trump family planned to make when the company opened the hotel in the fall.

Driving the profits are the extraordinary prices guests have been willing to pay for rooms, including members of Trump’s Cabinet who have stayed or lived there, as well as big spending on food and beverages in the meeting areas, bar and restaurant — spots frequented by members of Trump’s inner circle and other Republican leaders.

Dusk outside the Trump International Hotel in Washington. (Evelyn Hockstein for The Washington Post)

This year, guests have paid an average of $652.98 a night to stay there, beating the company’s expectations by 57 percent, according to documents posted online recently by the General Services Administration.

That probably makes it the most expensive hotel in the city, according to industry experts, as guests at competing luxury hotels such as the Hay-Adams, Four Seasons and Willard paid an average of $495 a night, according to data from STR.

Since Trump entered the White House in January, the hotel has emerged as a Republican Party power center and popular destination for conservative, foreign and Christian groups holding meetings in Washington, earning Trump’s company $19.7 million through April 15, according to his financial disclosure with the government.

Government ethics experts and Democrats in Congress have railed against the government’s lease, with Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.) calling it a “highly unethical arrangement.”

“What makes all of this particularly galling is that we now have the unprecedented situation where the President of the United States is both the landlord and tenant of a federal building,” he said in a July statement.

Upon taking office, Trump tried to address ethical concerns by turning over the hotel’s management to his two eldest sons and vowing to take no hotel profits during his tenure. But he retained his ownership interest, allowing him to eventually profit from the holdings, against the advice of the government’s top ethics official.

Government watchdog groups, competing businesses and state attorneys general have sued over what they call unfair business practices that allow Trump to use the presidency to enrich himself — a tension likely to be heightened by the hotel’s almost immediate profitability.

Of his 202 days in office, Trump has spent 65 days at his properties, most of them at his golf properties. He has twice been to the Pennsylvania Avenue hotel to have dinner, appearances that critics say amount to promotional displays.

But although there has been evidence of revenue slipping at Trump golf courses, his D.C. hotel is already able to charge more than most — if not all — other hotels in the capital.

“The Trump International is, if not the, then one of the top rate-getters in the city,” said Marc Magazine, an executive at the real estate firm Savills Studley.

Trump International visitors have spent $8.2 million on food and drinks so far at the hotel this year, beating expectations by 37.2 percent. Those gains easily outweighed underperformance by the hotel’s retail, parking and Spa by Ivanka Trump, which all failed to meet the company’s expectations.

Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, led the development of the project as a Trump Organization executive before resigning to join the White House. She also retained her stake in the hotel and reported $2.4 million in hotel-related revenue from its opening to June.

The hotel’s management has sought to capi­tal­ize on the president’s popularity in the GOP by marketing meeting space and rooms to Republicans and conservatives.

“We are very proud of the success of the project,” the president’s son Eric Trump, who took over the company with his brother Don Jr., said in an email.

The data does not show how much of the hotel’s profits come from foreign governments, money the hotel has promised to donate to the U.S. treasury at the end of the year to avoid violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which prohibits the president from profiting from foreign governments without specific approval from Congress.

The Trump International’s performance to date comes despite the fact that its rooms are more often empty than its competitors’, meaning there is room to grow its profits. It posted an occupancy rate of 42.3 percent, compared with nearly 70 percent in the industry.

Management is charging so much, however, that the hotel is doing just fine.

“Basically, this hotel is getting three times the average rate,” said analyst Michael Bellisario of Robert W. Baird & Co. “So some people really want to stay there, and then there’s a bunch of people who don’t.”


I DO HOPE THE POLICE CATCH THE REAL CRIMINAL. THE VIDEO OF THIS CRIME WAS HORRIBLE. I DON’T UNDERSTAND PURE AND POINTLESS VICIOUSNESS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/british-police-admit-they-arrested-wrong-man-for-pushing-woman-in-front-of-bus/
CBS/AP August 12, 2017, 9:24 AM
British police admit they arrested wrong man for pushing woman in front of bus

LONDON -- The search is still on for a road-rage jogger who shoved a woman into the path of a London bus.

The Metropolitan Police force said Saturday that a man arrested earlier this week has now been "eliminated from the investigation."

Eric Bellquist, a 41-year-old American investment banker, was apprehended Thursday on suspicion of being the man seen in blurry security camera video taken on London's Putney Bridge in May.

London jogger caught on video pushing woman in front of bus
Play VIDEO
London jogger caught on video pushing woman in front of bus

His lawyers later released a statement saying he was not involved and could prove he was in the U.S. at the time of the May 5 incident.

The arrest came after police released surveillance camera footage of the incident, showing a jogger in shorts and T-shirt banging into a pedestrian, who tumbled in front of a double-decker bus. The bus stopped just before hitting the woman.

Police announced on Thursday that a 50-year-old man had been arrested at a home in the well-heeled Chelsea area of the city on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm. He was later released on bail.

Police say "inquiries continue" to identify the jogger.


HOLLYWOOD STAR WINS A BATTLE FOR WOMEN EVERYWHERE

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/taylor-swift-judge-throws-out-lawsuit-denver-dj/
CBS/AP August 11, 2017, 8:07 PM
Taylor Swift prevails as judge dismisses DJ's groping lawsuit

Photograph -- Taylor Swift seen in court on Thu., Aug. 10, 2017. JEFF KANDYBA

A judge has thrown out a civil lawsuit against Taylor Swift from a former DJ who claims he was fired after being falsely accused of groping the pop star at a meet-and-greet.

U.S. District Judge William Martinez determined Friday that the pop star could not be held liable because David Mueller hadn't shown that she personally set out to have him fired after the backstage meet-and-greet in 2013. Mueller's identical allegations against Swift's mother and her radio liaison will go to the jury.

Mueller sued the Swifts and their radio handler, Frank Bell, seeking up to $3 million as compensation for his ruined career.

The singer-songwriter said in her countersuit that she wanted a symbolic $1 and the chance to stand up for other women.

Drawing -- ap-17222605234024.jpg -- In this courtroom sketch, defendant David Mueller, a former radio DJ, left, sits with his attorney during a trial Thursday, Aug. 10, 2017, in Denver. JEFF KANDYBA VIA AP



FROM WHAT I SAW IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS OF ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN ATTEMPTS TO ABRUPTLY REMOVE OBAMACARE AND LEAVE MILLIONS OF CITIZENS WITH NO HEALTHCARE, IT WON’T BE VOTED IN. REPUBLICANS LISTEN TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS ALSO. REMEMBER THE PROTESTORS AT MITCH MCCONNELL’S OFFICE DOOR? POLICE CARRYING NON-AMBULATORY PEOPLE OUT TO SQUAD CARS? AS KRAUTHAMMER SAID IN THE SECOND ARTICLE, VOTING FOR A “CLEAN” REPEAL “WOULD BE SUICIDAL.” THE REASON IS THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE OUT HERE DO NEED OBAMACARE OR SOME TRULY ADEQUATE REPLACEMENT THAT WOULD NOT INVOLVE ANY GAP IN COVERAGE AT ALL. IF THEY’RE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR CAMPAIGN PROMISES, THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE SAID SUCH A THING IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-freedom-caucus-launches-petition-to-compel-obamacare-repeal-vote/
By KATHRYN WATSON CBS NEWS August 11, 2017, 6:16 PM
House Freedom Caucus launches petition to compel Obamacare repeal vote

The House Freedom Caucus on Friday launched a petition to force a vote on the House floor on a straight Obamacare repeal bill, meaning the fight over health care isn't dead — at least, not yet.

The group of conservative Republicans needs 218 members to sign the discharge petition to bring H. Res. 458, a clean repeal of Obamacare, to the floor for a vote. The petition is a type of parliamentary procedure used to bypass the committee process. A handful of House Freedom Caucus members, including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Tom Garrett (R-Virginia), and Scott Perry (R-Pennsylvania) signed the petition from the House floor on Friday.

"It's critical that we keep our promise to the American people and repeal Obamacare and replace it with a policy that works for American families," said caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-North Carolina), in a statement. "We cannot drag this process out any longer. This bill – with a two-year delay on implementation of repeal – will force Congress to come together on a replacement bill. President Trump is eager to sign repeal and replace, it's time we get to work and send both to his desk."

The petition is an attempt to push forward the stalled health care reform in Congress. The House passed a bill to repeal and replace parts of Obamacare in May, but the Senate failed to do so twice, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other top Republicans made it clear the Senate is moving on to other issues like tax reform.

Chances of a straight Obamacare repeal in the House or the Senate don't look good. The Senate rejected a clean* Obamacare repeal bill last month.

But Mr. Trump, who has publicly shamed McConnell for the health care failure on Twitter and won't answer whether he wants McConnell to step aside, isn't giving up on a key part of his campaign platform to repeal his predecessor's signature legislation.

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Can you believe that Mitch McConnell, who has screamed Repeal & Replace for 7 years, couldn't get it done. Must Repeal & Replace ObamaCare!
6:54 AM - Aug 10, 2017
33,409 33,409 Replies 24,152 24,152 Retweets 99,731 99,731 likes

The House Freedom Caucus hopes to bring the clean repeal bill to a vote in September.

"We make this job too difficult," Jordan said in a statement. "We need to do what we told the voters we were going to do. There's no reason we should send less on repeal to President Trump's desk than we sent to President Obama's. Now is the time for members of Congress to put on the record whether they're truly for repeal of Obamacare."


WHAT, EXACTLY, DOES A “CLEAN REPEAL” MEAN? THERE IS NO “DEFINITION” ON THE NET. YES, I GET THE GIST. I JUST WANT SPECIFICS IF THERE ARE ANY. FROM WHAT I SEE IN THESE ARTICLES, THOUGH, IT SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THOSE TERMS THAT MEANS “WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED AND NO AMENDMENTS.” THAT IMMEDIATE REPEAL OF THE ONE AND ONLY PLAN FOR THE LOWER 2/3 OR SO OF AMERICANS MEANS NO RELIEF FOR THE CITIZENS OF THESE UNITED STATES. BAD MOVE.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/20/krauthammer-says-a-vote-on-clean-repeal-would-be-suicidal-heres-why/
Krauthammer says a vote on clean repeal would be ‘suicidal’ — here’s why
Carlos Garcia Jul 20, 2017 9:19 am

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News Wednesday that the plan to vote on a “clean repeal” of Obamacare after failure of a repeal and replace bill was “suicidal.”

“Look, I think the chances of a resurrection here are rather small,” he said. “If it succeeded, it would be the most spectacular since Lazarus, and I’m not sure that these people have divine powers.

“The problem is that they chose an issue on which inherently there are huge divisions among Republicans,” he explained. “And I don’t think it sort of questions the very existence or even the value of the party. They made a strategic error in doing this. And in part, it was for tactical reasons. They wanted to repeal heath care reform so that they could get a new, better bottom line to work with in doing tax reform.”

“So it was kind of an inside baseball parliamentary maneuver,” he said. “They ran into the problem that after seven years what they were united on seven years ago was different because people have become accustomed to the new entitlement and that’s why they’re split.

“I think they have a good chance of working out something on tax reform,” Krauthammer continued. “That’s their strength. That’s what I would have recommended they start with. I think the best thing to do now, ironically, is to walk away.”

“I think it’s going to be suicidal to go ahead with the vote next week,” he said. “It would be a repudiation.”

“It’s going to be a vote to proceed, meaning that there are Republicans who will vote against it,” he concluded, “and there will be enough, I think, to shoot it down, are saying ‘we’re done with this.’ Well, you don’t have to have it officially on the record, just walk away and go immediately to something perhaps even radical on tax reform.”

The Senate Republicans’ Obamacare repeal and replace legislation was abandoned after Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) dramatically tweeted in unison that they were against the bill Monday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) then announced that the Senate would vote on a “clean repeal” bill.

Some conservatives have grown fed up with the lack of success in the Senate, and are calling for the GOP to replace McConnell. Erick Erickson said that it appeared McConnell was purposely obstructing President Donald Trump’s agenda in order to scapegoat conservatives.

VIDEO -- Trump Orders Senate To Work It Out On Obamacare


A MOVEMENT EMERGES FULL BLOWN WHEN ITS’ TIME HAS COME, LIKE ATHENA FROM ZEUS’ HEAD.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/11/politics/democrats-bernie-sanders-feud/index.html
Inside the fight that could derail the Democratic Party
Eric BradnerGreg Krieg
By Eric Bradner and Gregory Krieg, CNN
Updated 7:57 PM ET, Fri August 11, 2017

Washington (CNN)In what should be Democrats' strongest moment since November, a series of emotional and racially charged clashes are forcing the party to once again confront the problem that has plagued it for a year: How to incorporate the supporters of Bernie Sanders.

The Vermont independent senator himself is winning battles over the direction of the Democratic Party. He has emerged as a messaging leader on health care, appeared on a "unity tour" with the party's new chairman and helped craft a populist economic agenda for the midterm elections. Many Democrats even concede the possibility that Sanders could enter the 2020 presidential race as the party's frontrunner if he chooses to run.

But even as Sanders and party leadership increasingly make ties on Capitol Hill, infighting with roots in the ideologically loaded and often deeply personal 2016 primary are threatening to blow up the détente.

This new series of emotional and racially tinged arguments could shatter a fragile peace, forged in opposition to President Donald Trump, and undermine Democratic efforts to claw back control from Republicans in Congress during next year's midterm election season.

"Unity requires give and take. But it seems that it's just take, take, take from the Berniecrats," said Nina Turner, the president of Our Revolution -- the political organization that emerged from Sanders' 2016 run for president -- using a term, "Berniecrats," that Sanders supporters like Turner apply to themselves.

Turner was appointed by Sanders to the DNC's "unity commission" in the wake of the 2016 contest. Her comments have led other members of the 21-person commission to grumble that Turner is more interested in sowing discord as a publicity and fundraising tool. But in an interview with CNN, she refused to back down.

"The Berniecrats are being labeled as always wrong -- 'they don't get it, they're too emotional, they don't want to win elections,'" Turner said. "This is a hurtful environment, and people are human and do have feelings. And so both sides are just duking it out."

The anger that has simmered in Sanders' camp since the 2016 Democratic National Convention bubbled to the surface in comments from some of the Vermont senator's most prominent political allies and surrogates, particularly in two recent clashes.

First, three key Sanders backers -- National Nurses Union executive director RoseAnn DeMoro, pro-Sanders journalist Nomiki Konst and "People for Bernie" co-founder Winnie Wong -- publicly dismissed Sen. Kamala Harris' prospects of winning over the party's progressive wing. The pointed quotes were picked up online when a Mic report, published after the California Democrat was feted by top party donors in the Hamptons, went viral in late July.

Photograph -- Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) questions witnesses from the Trump Administration in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in June.

Many Democrats saw the criticism of Harris as a needless and counterproductive jab at a rising star. But Sanders' backers -- who tend to be younger and whiter than the overall Democratic electorate -- were stung by suggestions that their distaste for Harris is fueled by race, like those from liberal MSNBC host Joy Reid, who tweeted: "So black Democrats must go begging young white leftists who were not numerous enough to nominate their preferred pick last time?"

"So odd, no, that these folks have (it) in for Kamala Harris and Cory Booker," tweeted Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress.

The intense backlash provoked an equally sharp response from Sanders' allies, including Turner and the three who had initially panned Harris -- DeMoro, Wong and Konst, none of whom are white men.

Fight comes to the DNC steps

The online brouhaha set the stage for an in-person clash July 25 -- the same day the Senate would vote on a motion to proceed to the Republican Obamacare repeal bill, a coincidence that would lead some party officials to question Our Revolution's tactics and motives -- just outside the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington.

Turner led a group of 60 activists to deliver a petition to the DNC. Our Revolution had told DNC officials of its plans three weeks earlier, Turner said.

When they arrived, DNC senior staffers greeted them on the steps with boxes of donuts and bottles of water.

The building's security team uses crowd control measures when large crowds come, a DNC spokeswoman said. It's not an unusual step, particularly for a party that was hacked in 2016 and with the political world on edge after the shooting at a congressional baseball practice.

DNC political director Amanda Brown Lierman spoke to the group on the building's steps, thanking them for their activism. But Turner -- who is a Sanders-appointed member of the DNC's "unity commission," a DNC member and a long-time Democrat -- was upset she wasn't allowed into the building.

"We understand the fire code. It's not our first time delivering petitions. We get it," Turner said. But, she added, the DNC could have invited her and five people delivering the petitions into the building to sit down and briefly chat.

"And then we could have walked out in five or 10 minutes, unified," Turner said. "They didn't even do that."

The incident took on increased importance after Turner lashed out at the DNC in an interview with BuzzFeed, which was published late Wednesday.

DeMoro, whose nurses' union provided crucial backing to Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign, spoke to Turner after the story's publication. "I told her that the problem here is that she's a movement leader. She's speaking truth to power," DeMoro said.

Accusations of a double standard

Sanders' allies view any effort to diminish Turner as one designed to undercut Sanders.

The primary reason: Sanders struggled with black and Latino voters in the 2016 Democratic primary. To win the nomination if he opts to run in 2020, Sanders will need to expand his base of support. In Turner, his allies see a powerful black female figure whose prominence showcases his broader appeal.

"They would like to classify everyone as a 'Bernie Bro' -- as a white guy, an angry white man," DeMoro said.

"What I think that (BuzzFeed) story indicates is Nina's effectiveness as a leader," DeMoro said. "She is a leader. And movement leaders are always under attack. Especially black movement leaders. So the narrative is to try and make them look unhinged, imbalanced -- it's to make anyone who speaks truth to power look unstable."

In both the backlash over Sanders allies' criticism of Harris and the DNC incident, Turner said she saw "the system" -- Democratic donors, Hillary Clinton-aligned operatives, in particular -- "really trying to continue trying to drive a wedge between progressive people of color and progressive whites."

Photograph -- Nina Turner is seen in this October 2014 photo. (AP Photo/Mark Duncan, File)

"They're using identity politics as a weapon," she said. By criticizing black Democrats such as Harris, Booker or former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Sanders supporters are "labeled as a racist and a sexist. But they don't say the same thing when their side comes out and attacks somebody like me."

That failure to defend her against racist attacks stings, said Turner -- adding that she's personally been called "Bernie's Omarosa" and "Bernie's Aunt Jemima."

"To be called that and not have an outcry from the tone police, it's hypocrisy," Turner said.

That's the Berniecrat leaders' view.

Elsewhere in the Democratic Party, lawmakers and strategists are complaining that Sanders' allies are forcing the party to revisit its 2016 divides -- at precisely the wrong time.

"It is not good for the rebuilding that needs to happen within the party for Democrats to be attacking each other, and I think in particular the attacks on Kamala Harris are fruitless and unfair," said Brian Fallon, who was Hillary Clinton's national press secretary and is now a senior adviser at the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA.

"Sen. Sanders is showing tremendous leadership in moving the Democratic Party in a progressive direction on issues from college affordability to Medicare for all," Fallon said. "But some of his supporters are undercutting that good work by trying to fast-forward to a 2020 presidential primary. We have too much important work that needs to be done before we start attacking people just because they're considered rising stars in the party."

Others also said it appeared Sanders' allies were firing a 2020 starting gun too early -- a charge both sides have now leveled against each other.

"On balance and in the long run, the Bernie team's spat with Kamala Harris has actually been beneficial to her -- it has raised her profile as a real contender in 2020 (otherwise, why would the Bernie folks feel so threatened?) and rallied the vast majority of the party in her defense," a Democratic operative said in an email. "That's not a good sign or look for Bernie Sanders and his team."

A moment for Sanders to speak up?

The complaints from Sanders' supporters come at what has the potential to be Democrats' strongest moment since Clinton's 2016 election loss.

The party leads Republicans in generic congressional polls. Its base is energized in a way Democrats haven't seen in years headed into the 2018 midterm elections. And a breach between President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is increasingly visible, with Trump attacking McConnell on Twitter.

"So why in the world would the progressive forces that want to resist Trump, that want to win up and down the ballot -- why in the hell would we be fighting with each other?" another Democratic strategist said.

"A lot of Democrats who really very much care about the same set of progressive issues that Bernie Sanders cares about are champing at the bit to say 'What the f---?' with Our Revolution."

That strategist said Sanders needs to weigh in. "These things are being done in his name. Where's his sense of responsibility for reining these things in?"

A representative for Sanders said the senator, who is in Vermont during the congressional recess, could not be reached for comment.

Several Democrats acknowledged that the party badly needs Sanders, whose supporters have remained loyal, within its fold -- and said they see the recent dust-ups as disconnected from the Vermont senator and out of step with his post-election actions.

Tanden described Sanders as "a hugely important force" in defending the Affordable Care Act from the GOP's repeal effort.

She called him a "strategic leader in the amendment process," said Sanders "rallied the troops," and pointed to his use of a key committee post to force Republicans to drop elements of their health care bill through the enforcement of the procedural "Byrd Rule."*

"I see, in his actions, him recognizing that we are facing the most right-wing administration in history. He himself has done a lot to unify people," Tanden said.

Carolyn Fiddler, the political editor and senior communications adviser for the progressive blog Daily Kos, said Sanders' allies should "sort out their differences with Democrats and shift their focus back to the task at hand sooner rather than later."

The DNC, meanwhile, would prefer to avoid a direct confrontation with Sanders' supporters -- even as members of the party's "unity commission" complain that Sanders' own appointees to that commission sniped at Harris and, in Turner's case, unloaded on the DNC.

"The DNC is focused on winning elections. That is our goal," said the DNC's Lierman, who met Turner's group of activists outside the party headquarters.

"And as we look at key races in 2017 and beyond, it's going to take progressives working together to bring about real change for working families. That is what we did when we defeated the Republican health care bill and that's what we will continue to do in races up and down the ballot," Lierman said. "We hope that all progressive leaders will join us in this fight."

THE “BYRD RULE” –
Reconciliation (United States Congress)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. . . .

The process was created by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and was first used in 1980. Reconciliation rules allow budget related adjustments, but larger policy changes that are extraneous to the budget are limited by "Byrd Rule", an amendment named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd that was passed in 1990.[2][3]

Reconciliation bills can be passed on spending, revenues, and the federal debt limit[4] once a year per topic unless Congress passes a revised budget resolution for that fiscal year (under section 304 of the Congressional Budget Act).[5] As an example, if a budget resolution's reconciliation instructions affect both spending and revenues, no further reconciliation legislation can occur on these topics in the same fiscal year without a revised budget resolution.[5]

. . . .

Under the original design of the Budget Act, reconciliation had a fairly narrow purpose: it was expected to be used together with the second budget resolution adopted in the fall, was to apply to a single fiscal year, and be directed primarily at spending and revenue legislation acted on between the adoption of the first and second budget resolutions.[6] . . . .

Although reconciliation was originally understood to be for the purpose of either reducing deficits or increasing surpluses, the language of the 1974 act refers only to "changes" in revenue and spending amounts, not specifically to increases or decreases. Per former Parliamentarian of the Senate Robert Dove:
[Reconciliation] was never used for that purpose. But in 1975, just a year after it had passed, a very canny Senate committee chairman, Russell Long of Louisiana, came into the Parliamentarian's Office, and he kept having trouble with his tax bills because of the Senate rules. People were offering amendments to them that he didn't like. They were debating them at length, and he didn't like that. And he saw in the Budget Act a way of getting around those pesky little problems. And he convinced the Parliamentarian at the time—I was the assistant—that the very first use of reconciliation should be to protect his tax cut bill.[7]

The Byrd Rule (as described below) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect has been to prohibit the use of reconciliation for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond 10 years after the reconciliation measure. The removal of such provisions has been described as a "Byrd Bath."[9]

. . . . During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts.[11] These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to fulfill the requirements of the Byrd Rule which prohibits legislation that increases the deficit after the time period covered by the budget resolution (section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974).


http://www.salon.com/2017/08/12/bernie-sanders-the-socialist-revival-and-the-unexpected-upsurge-of-millennial-marxism/
SATURDAY, AUG 12, 2017 06:00 AM EDT
Bernie Sanders, the socialist revival and the unexpected upsurge of millennial Marxism
Bernie Sanders proved socialism isn't dead — and some young people are open to the banished ideas of Karl Marx
CONOR LYNCH

Since his grassroots presidential campaign took the world by storm last year, Sen. Bernie Sanders has been widely credited with bringing socialism back into the mainstream of American politics and introducing an entire generation to left-wing politics. As a major presidential candidate who unabashedly identified as a democratic socialist, Sanders essentially resurrected an idea that has been considered off limits in our political discourse for many decades: that there is an alternative to capitalism and the status quo.

This radical idea has become less taboo in recent years, and today an increasing number of millennials say they reject capitalism, while a majority of Americans support “socialistic” policies like universal health care (for the first time in a long time, single-payer is gaining mainstream momentum). Clearly, Sanders deserves the credit he has received for shifting the Overton window and reintroducing a form of left-wing class politics to America. It is safe to say that no single person has done more to revive the American left than the Vermont senator.

But Sanders’ political rise did not happen in a vacuum, and it’s unlikely he would have achieved much success had the social and economic conditions not been ripe. Though the 75-year old senator played an essential role in demystifying socialism to the public and instilling a radical spirit in the progressive movement, the current resurgence of class politics on the left has been in the works for many years, going back to the 2007-08 financial crisis.

It hasn’t been white-haired socialists who have provided the foundation for this resurgence, but young people who grew up in the era of neoliberalism. This was evident last week, when progressive millennials flocked to Chicago for the biannual Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) convention, where delegates came together to vote on various resolutions for the party. In the past year, the DSA has tripled its membership, and what is particularly telling about this growth is that the average age of DSA members has dropped by half virtually overnight, from 64 in 2015 to just 30 today.

This trend has led to a cottage industry of think pieces speculating about why millennials have embraced old school leftists like Sanders and British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, but it is hardly a great mystery. Millennials came of age during the worst capitalist crisis in 80 years and live in a time when income and wealth inequality have reached historic levels — as evidenced by the fact that the eight richest men in the world (seven of whom are white American men) own as much wealth as the bottom 3.6 billion people.

Millennials inhabit a planet that faces ecological collapse, and most grasp the threat of climate change on a visceral level. Young people are also crippled by record levels of debt and despite being better educated than their parents earn 20 percent less than baby boomers did at this point in their lives. Finally, millennials have grown up in a time when moneyed interests have completely infiltrated the political process, creating an oligarchic form of government that serves the economic elite rather than the majority.

In other words, millennials are increasingly ambivalent about capitalism because it is a system that has failed their generation. Not surprisingly, this has led to a significant number of young intellectuals who have also rediscovered the works of Karl Marx, the great diagnostician of capitalism’s ills. Around the same time that the Occupy Wall Street protests erupted around the country in 2011, Bhaskar Sunkara founded Jacobin, the left-wing quarterly that has grown rapidly over the past five years, publishing the work of many millennial Marxists.

Of course, it is one thing to call yourself a socialist (or a “democratic socialist”) in America, and another thing entirely to identify as a Marxist. For the past century Karl Marx has been the ultimate intellectual bogeyman in the United States. For the majority of Americans who have no first-hand familiarity with the 19th-century thinker and his work, the term “Marxism” is synonymous with Stalinism and totalitarianism.

As with the millennial embrace of an elderly democratic socialist, this Marxist revival has predictably confounded many liberal and conservative critics, who assume that youngsters simply don’t know their 20th-century history. “That Marxism is not viewed with a similar horror as Nazism is one of the greatest failings of contemporary education,” tweeted Claire Lehmann, editor of the libertarian-leaning publication Quillette magazine, last month.

One of the greatest failings of contemporary education, one might counter, is that critics of Marxism know next to nothing about Marx or Marxism, other than the fact that some unsavory historical figures identified themselves with the term. This is obviously not a new phenomenon, and more than 50 years ago the American sociologist C. Wright Mills attempted to provide an objective account of Marx’s ideas in his 1962 book, “The Marxists,” meant to counteract the propaganda efforts of Cold Warriors. Mills’ book is just as useful today when it comes to explaining why Marx remains relevant in the 21st century. (Some might argue he is even more relevant today than in the mid-20th century, as capitalism has conquered the globe). In order to uncover what makes Marx’s work so valuable, Mills makes an important analytical distinction between the philosopher’s methodology/model and his theories:

A model is a more or less systematic inventory of the elements to which we must pay attention if we are to understand something. It is not true or false; it is useful and adequate to varying degrees. A theory, in contrast, is a statement which can be proved true or false, about the casual weight and the relations of the elements of a model. Only in terms of this distinction can we understand why Marx’s work is truly great.

Marx’s model, argues Mills, “is what is great; that is what is alive in marxism. [Marx] provides a classic machinery for thinking about man, society, and history. That is the reason there have been so many quite different revivals of marxism. Marx is often wrong, in part because he died in 1883, in part because he did not use his own machinery as carefully as we now can, and in part because some of the machinery itself needs to be refined and even redesigned. . . . Neither the truth nor the falsity of Marx’s theories confirm the adequacy of his model.”

Marx’s model looked at the structure of society as a whole, as well as that “structure in historical motion,” and the German philosopher and economist employed this model to examine and reveal the dynamics of capitalism. This largely explains why there has been a renewed interest in Marx’s work in recent years, especially among millennials who have lived their entire lives under a global capitalist order. Marx’s model of looking at the world, along with his exhaustive analysis of capitalism, helps us to understand our own contemporary reality and where we are headed.

While Marx’s model is essential to understanding modern society, another fundamental aspect of Marxism is, of course, the merging of theory and practice. As Marx famously declared, “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”

This remains the ultimate goal for millennial Marxists and socialists. Although capitalism has never been more globally dominant than it is today, this has also engendered social and economic conditions that are ripe for left-wing political movements. As the Marxist economist Richard Wolff recently said during an interview on Fox Business:

Socialism is in a way the shadow of capitalism. Nothing guarantees the future of socialism so much as capitalism, because socialism is capitalism’s self-criticism.

Conor Lynch is a writer and journalist living in New York City. His work has appeared on Salon, AlterNet, Counterpunch and openDemocracy. Follow him on Twitter: @dilgentbureauct



DO WATCH THIS VIDEO AND THE TELEGRAPH ARTICLE. THEY’RE BOTH LOVELY. THIS MAN WAS A GREAT SINGER AND A BEAUTIFUL PERSON – INSIDE AND OUTSIDE. HEARING HIS VOICE CARRIES ME BACK HAPPILY TO MY TWENTIES IN CHAPEL HILL, NC.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/country-legend-glen-campbell-remembered/
Country legend Glen Campbell remembered
AUGUST 9, 2017, 7:16 AM| Legendary country singer and guitarist Glen Campbell died Tuesday at the age of 81. Campbell had been battling Alzheimer's disease. Anthony Mason, who interviewed the star during his farewell tour, reports.


NOTE: VIDEOS OF EACH SONG ARE EMBEDDED IN THE STORY FOR YOUR MEMORY TRIP BACK IN TIME.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/what-to-listen-to/glen-campbell-10-best-songs/#
Glen Campbell: his 10 best songs
James Hall
9 AUGUST 2017 • 3:44PM

Country legend Glen Campbell died on August 8, aged 81. Here, we look back at the singer's 10 greatest songs

By the Time I Get to Phoenix

After years as a session musician with the Wrecking Crew in Los Angeles, Glen Campbell released a run of singles that went nowhere in the charts. All that changed in 1967 with his rendition of Jimmy Webb’s By the Time I Get to Phoenix, which reached number two in the US Country chart. The ballad became the template for his best-known songs with Webb: aching strings, acoustic guitar, souring melody and confessional lyrics. The subject matter’s bleak; the song is about Campbell dumping a woman by pinning a note on her door and legging it. But his sweet voice drizzles the pill with syrup, making the whole dumping thing sound weirdly fine.

Southern Nights

In 1977 Campbell covered Allen Toussaint’s 1975 song, adding a poppy and sanitised sheen to what was a woozy tribute to nights spent exchanging stories on a Louisiana porch. While Toussaint’s original had a shimmering psychedelic otherworldliness, Campbell’s version was firmly aimed at the mainstream. It worked. The song reached number one on three separate US charts: country, pop, and adult contemporary.

Wichita Lineman

Probably Campbell’s best-loved song, Wichita Lineman was another Jimmy Webb collaboration. Over sweeping strings reminiscent of those on By the Time I Get to Phoenix, Campbell assumes the character of a solitary telephone repairman working on a line in a dustbowl town. "And I need you more than want you, and I want you for all time," he sings. It’s a heart-stopping song about love, loneliness and the importance of well-maintained rural telecommunications systems. It’s musically genius too: at one point, its stabbing strings relay a Morse Code message. Although the 1968 song was his second number one in the US Country chart, it was his first crossover hit, taking the number three spot in the overall charts. The song has been covered by everyone from Tom Jones to Kool & The Gang to REM.

A Better Place

From 2011’s Ghost on the Canvas album, this song clocks in at just two minutes long. It’s a pared back track, and a stark examination of Campbell’s battle with Alzheimer’s. It includes the line, "Some days I’m so confused, Lord, my past gets in the way." Campbell fan Josh Homme, from Queens of the Stone Age, appears in a spine-tingling, extended video for the song as a tuxedo-wearing bartender. In it, he gives Campbell a scrapbook containing memories and photographs of his life. "I’ve lived and I have loved, Lord, sometimes at such a cost. One thing I know: the world’s been good to me," Campbell sings as he flicks through. It’s heartbreaking.


Gentle on my Mind

This song by John Hartford won four Grammys after Campbell re-released it in 1968 following his first flush of solo success. To some its softly cascading melody epitomises the easy listening genre as Campbell lists all the reasons that a lover lingers gently on his mind. But there is a heartlessness here too. Because his lover’s door is always open, Campbell sings, he tends to leave his sleeping bag rolled up and stashed behind her couch as he wanders. The song became the theme tune for his TV show The Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour. Johnny Cash’s cover version, recorded with Campbell in his final years, remains the most haunting of the hundreds of covers.


Guess I’m Dumb

Written by the Beach Boys’ Brian Wilson and songwriter Russ Titelman, 1965’s Guess I’m Dumb could easily have featured on the Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds album, on which Campbell played as a session musician. The song sounds like an early version of I Know There’s an Answer or You Still Believe in Me. However, when Wilson’s Beach Boys bandmates refused to sing the track, he offered it to Campbell as a thank you for filling in for him on tour following a nervous breakdown. The song failed to chart but it’s a lost gem.


Rhinestone Cowboy

A song about dreaming of the big time and making it. Written by Larry Weiss, this came out in the mid-1970s, eight years after Campbell achieved fame with By the Time I Get to Phoenix. The story goes that Campbell took a demo of the song with him on a tour of Australia and, thanks to an airline strike, learnt it on the long road journeys between gigs. One of music’s biggest ever crossover hits, it bridged the gap between country and mainstream pop. The song’s theme formed the basis of the 1984 film Rhinestone, starring Sylvester Stallone and Dolly Parton.


Galveston

Another Jimmy Webb composition, 1969’s Galveston was a little more uptempo than Wichita Lineman. The softest of anti-war songs, it’s about a Vietnam soldier wanting to be anywhere but in battle. He dreams of being back in the Texan city of Galveston. While not as much of a stone cold classic as the other Webb collaborations, the song is as catchy as hell. Unlike the title of its B-side, How Come Every Time I Itch I Wind Up Scratchin’ You.


These Days

This cover of Jackson Browne’s song features on Campbell’s 2008 covers album Meet Glen Campbell. It is a low key and largely acoustic song in which Campbell says he doesn’t do too much talking these days, preferring to walk and contemplate life. His voice is rich and deep. It’s the highlight on an album of covers that also includes Campbell’s take on songs by Travis, Green Day, U2 and Foo Fighters, amongst others.


Adiós

The last song on Campbell’s 64th and last album, released just this June, Adiós typifies Campbell’s mournful, yearning and beautiful delivery. "We never really made it, baby. But we came pretty close," he sings. "Our dreams of endless summer, they were just too grandiose. Adiós, adiós." Although the album was actually recorded in 2012, the song is all the more moving given the timing of its release. A poignant masterpiece.



THE CENTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HASN’T REALLY BEEN THE CENTER FOR AWHILE NOW, BUT THE RIGHT LEANING, INSTEAD. WE NEED A LEFTWARD MOVE FOR THE ENTIRE PARTY JUST TO GET BACK TO WHERE WE STARTED IN 1930; AND THAT MEANS WITH AN EMPHASIS ON JOBS, UNIONS, EDUCATION, RETIREMENT FUNDING, HEALTHCARE, HOUSING, ETC., AND THEN THE DISAFFECTED WHO EVER WERE DEMOCRATS WILL COME BACK, OR IF NOT THERE WILL BE NEW ONES TO JOIN. UNTIL BERNIE SANDERS CAME ON THE SCENE I HADN’T HAD ANYONE I CARED ABOUT IN YEARS. I VOTED, BUT IT WAS LIKE EATING PABLUM. WE QUIT CHAMPIONING UNION ACTIVITY, AND UNIONS WERE ALMOST DECIMATED IN THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOODS. IN THE 60S AND 70S THEY WERE OUT THERE WITH PICKET SIGNS FOR THEIR WORKERS. THAT’S VISUAL AND PRACTICAL RATHER THAN THEORETICAL. IT’S MEAT, BREAD AND MORTGAGES. ACCEPT AND ACKNOWLEDGE IT. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS ABANDONED ALL WORKING PEOPLE OF ALL COLORS. WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT AT THE TOP OF THE PARTY AND ON THE STREET WITH THE WORKERS. THAT’S WHY I PRETTY MUCH FEEL THAT WE NEED FOR THE PROGRESSIVES TO SPLIT OFF AND UNITE WITH THE GREENS TO FORM A NEW PROGRESSIVE PARTY.

I SUGGEST MEETINGS MONTHLY AT A CONVENIENT CENTRAL LOCATION AND JUST DISCUSSING ISSUES AND PLATFORM GOALS, FUND RAISING; PUBLICIZED MOCK DEBATES IN A PUBLIC PLACE FOR AUDIENCES SUCH AS THE AUDITORIUM OF A CHURCH; LOCAL READING AND WRITING GROUPS; DOING PHYSICAL THINGS IN NEIGHBORHOODS SUCH AS CLEANUP DAYS OF PICKING UP TRASH, MOWING LAWNS, AND OF COURSE ALWAYS TALK, TALK, TALK TO “THE PEOPLE” WHERE THEY LIVE. WE COULD ASK THEM WHAT THEY BELIEVE NEEDS TO BE DONE AND THEN START DOING SOME OF THOSE THINGS. WHEN THERE’S NO ACTIVITY AND NO PERSONAL CONTACT, THERE WILL BE NO ENTHUSIASM FOR THE ELECTION EITHER. IF PEOPLE WILL GET OUT FROM IN FRONT OF THEIR COMPUTERS AND TVS, THE POLITICAL PARTY WILL BE ENERGIZED.

THE DEMS NEED, FURTHERMORE, TO TALK ABOUT ISSUES AND ACTIVITIES, MORE THAN ABOUT PARTY LABELS, SPECIFIC PARTY LEADERS, FUND RAISERS AND POSITIONS WITHIN THE PARTY. I HAVE ALWAYS FELT THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON THE LOCAL LEVEL NEVER SHOWS ITS’ FACE UNTIL IT’S ELECTION TIME. THAT MEANS THAT THOSE CANDIDATES ARE UNKNOWN QUANTITIES, AND THEREFORE NEITHER LIKED FULLY NOR TRUSTED. WHEN THEY SAY, “ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL,” I BELIEVE THEY MEAN THAT THE VOTERS AREN’T INTERESTED ENOUGH TO VOTE UNTIL THAT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE BARRIER IS BROKEN DOWN. THAT’S WHY EVERY TIME I SEE A NEW CANDIDATE’S NAME I GOOGLE HIM/HER. I WANT A BIO, A PHOTOGRAPH, AND A SUMMARY OF THEIR HISTORY AND VIEWS. WIKIPEDIA IS GREAT FOR THAT.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/centrist-democrats-begin-pushing-back-against-bernie-sanders-liberal-wing/2017/08/10/6e1ea684-7d19-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?utm_term=.467625ce02c7
PowerPost Analysis
Centrist Democrats begin pushing back against Bernie Sanders, liberal wing
By Paul Kane August 10 at 10:46 AM

Photograph -- Former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack is among a number of Democrats who have signed on with New Democracy, a combination think tank and super PAC . (Jeff Roberson/Associated Press)

The high-profile stars of the Democratic Party’s populist wing have steered the agenda their way on Capitol Hill this year, but the fight over the party’s direction is far from settled.

As the party faces great expectations of big gains in the 2018 midterm elections, Democratic centrists are increasingly worried that the disproportionate share of attention shown to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the agenda pushed by his anti-establishment allies will do more harm than good.

That direction, the thinking goes, will energize liberals in places where Democrats are already winning by big margins. But it may drive away the voters needed to win inland races that will shape the House majority and determine which governors and state legislators are in charge of redrawing federal and state legislative districts early next decade.

Enter a group called New Democracy, a combination think tank and super PAC trying to reimagine the party’s brand in regions where Democrats have suffered deep losses.

Leaders of the group want to focus on rebuilding in states where, during the Obama presidency, Democrats lost nearly 1,000 legislative seats and more than a dozen governor’s mansions.

“Our most important work will be done outside of Washington,” Will Marshall, founder of New Democracy, said in an interview.

The effort is publicly being labeled as “supplemental” to the emerging agenda being crafted on Capitol Hill, including the highly populist “Better Deal” proposal that party leaders in the House and the Senate touted last month. But the new group’s leaders do not see that agenda, including a push for lower prescription-drug prices, as particularly helpful to Democrats in exurban districts or key Midwestern states that President Trump won last year.

“That is an accurate reflection of many Democrats who represent deep blue districts. But it has limited appeal beyond the coasts,” Marshall said.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have been trying to offer the sort of economic agenda items that can appeal to voters in Iowa as well as California, targeted at working-class voters who abandoned Democrats for Trump.

But some centrists fear that this populist message will be tuned out by heartland voters if it is accompanied by the party’s increasing embrace of staunch liberal positions on cultural matters, including abortion rights and transgender issues.

Should House Democrats write off rural congressional districts?

Marshall helped begin similar efforts as Democrats lost three straight presidential elections in the 1980s, under the auspices of the Democratic Leadership Council and its offshoot, the Progressive Policy Institute.

Back then, operating under the New Democrat banner, the centrists helped create the ideas behind the 1992 presidential campaign of Bill Clinton, who became the first two-term Democrat in the White House since FDR.

New Democracy is taking shape under the failure of another Clinton — Hillary — whose loss to Trump helped solidify the already growing divide between Democrats and voters beyond large urban centers. Several dozen Democrats have signed on with New Democracy, including Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto and Rep. Stephanie Murphy (Fla.), a freshman rising star.

The two Democratic wings could be headed for a fierce clash over what the party needs to stand for in the wake of the stunning 2016 defeat. Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and other liberals have been making gains in getting congressional Democrats to support ideas, including a $15-an-hour minimum wage and some form of free college, and demanding a full-frontal assault on big banks and big corporations.

So far, however, the college plans pushed by Sanders have not been in the “Better Deal.” Senior Democratic advisers say that their effort has been to embrace economic populism without focusing on less politically popular liberal ideas.

The early portions of the “Better Deal” agenda tilt in the populist direction, with calls for stronger antitrust regulations and tough talk on trade deals. The belief is that white, working-class voters — millions of whom voted for Barack Obama but then Trump — felt left behind in an economy with fewer manufacturing plants, and those jobs went offshore or disappeared through automation.

Marshall and other Democrats fear that the populist tone is built around a negative message of casting blame, and lacks the optimistic tones around which Bill Clinton and Obama built their successful presidential bids.

Combine that negative tone with what critics say is a cultural elitism among urban liberals on social issues, and the centrist wing feels that voters in the heartland simply do not embrace the Democratic message anymore.

“The party’s gotten a little too comfortable with its urban and coastal strongholds,” Marshall said.

New Democracy’s mission statement is even more blunt, warning that both parties have engaged in “a civically corrosive form of identity politics” and that Democrats should “avoid vilifying people whose social views aren’t as ‘progressive’ as we think they should be.”

“For many working class and rural voters, the party’s message seems freighted with elite condescension for traditional values (especially faith) and lifestyles,” the group says.

The first big public event for New Democracy will come at an October summit hosted by Vilsack, who grew increasingly disenchanted last year with what he viewed as the Clinton campaign’s unwillingness to court rural voters.

Vilsack’s tough message for fellow Democrats: Stop writing off rural America

In the 2008 election, Obama won the Hawkeye State by nearly 10 percentage points, giving Iowa Democrats a 32-to-18 edge in the state Senate and a 56-to-44 edge in the state House. The governor, Chet Culver, was a Democrat, as were four of the state’s seven members of Congress.

In 2016, Trump won Iowa by nearly 10 percentage points, and Republicans now hold a comfortable nine-seat majority in the state Senate and a 19-seat majority in the state House. Trump appointed the state’s popular Republican governor, Terry Branstad, to be ambassador to China.

Iowa now sends just one Democrat to Congress.

That kind of shift happened across many states far away from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts over the past eight years.

It remains to be seen how much efforts like New Democracy really will supplement the party’s efforts to reach new voters — and how much of this will turn into a deep fight with the liberal wing.

New Democracy is reserving the right to wade into primaries to support moderate candidates, which could foreshadow the type of expensive primary battles Republicans have had over the past eight years.

“Obama’s success has masked the narrowing of the party’s appeal,” Marshall said, fearing that Democrats are not reaching beyond liberal elites. “Dogma seems to be in the driver’s seat.”

Read more from Paul Kane’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.



SANDERS “LITMUS TEST” – THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE. I LOVE POLITICO. THIS ARTICLE TELLS ME THAT MY HOPE AND OPINION THAT SANDERS HAS A GENUINE CHANCE TO WIN AGAINST TRUMP IN 2020, IF THE DNC DOESN’T TRY TO DESTROY HIM FIRST. THEIR JEALOUSY OF HIM IS SO APPARENT. THEY MOVED RIGHT TO COUNTER THE POWER OF THE RACIST DEMOCRATS OF THE “DIXIECRAT” GROUP UNDER BILL CLINTON, AND WENT SO FAR OVER THAT THEY DROPPED THE UNIONS AND SOCIAL IDEALISTS INTO THE MUD.

NOW THEY’RE ANGRY AND FEELING CHEATED, BUT NOT ABLE TO WIN WITHOUT THE PROGRESSIVES. THEY’RE IN A PICKLE. ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS COME ON OVER TOWARD THE LEFT AGAIN AND STAND FOR THE WORKING PEOPLE AND THE UNEMPLOYED POOR, DISABLED, ETC. I WILL WELCOME THEM BACK WHEN THEY DO THAT, IF THEY WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR DISHONESTY, ARROGANCE, AND SHORT-SIGHTEDNESS WHEN THEY SO COLDLY SHAFTED BERNIE SANDERS. I’LL FORGET ABOUT THAT WHEN THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR MISDEEDS.

ONE, IT WASN’T “HILLARY’S TURN,” BECAUSE THIS ISN’T A GAME. IT’S AN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CRISIS THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN, MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE EVENTS AT THE DNC IN 2016. LET’S FACE IT. SHE WANTED IT SO BADLY THAT SHE WAS WILLING TO DO ALMOST ANYTHING TO GET IT, BUT SHE HADN’T A CHANCE TO WIN. I HAVE NEVER QUITE UNDERSTOOD WHAT CONSERVATIVES FIND SO UNBEARABLE ABOUT HILLARY, BUT THERE IT IS.

IT’S A PROBLEM THAT’S HERE TO STAY. BERNIE DID HAVE A CHANCE, AND I BELIEVE HE STILL DOES. ANYONE WHO WINS THE PRESIDENCY FOR THE DEMOCRATS HAS TO BE ABLE TO AROUSE OUR SOCIAL CONSCIENCE, AND BERNIE CAN. MANY BERNIE DEMOCRATS DIDN’T VOTE. I DID, BECAUSE I FELT THAT I HAD TO. WE NEED TO STOP THE ALT-RIGHT POLITICALLY BEFORE WE END UP WITH A DICTATOR, AND THAT MEANS GETTING BEHIND A REALLY POPULAR, INTELLIGENT, HONEST AND WELL-RESPECTED LEADER INSTEAD. IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE TO BE SUFFICIENTLY AROUSED, I DON’T BELIEVE THEY WOULD TURN OUT TO BE POSITIONED ALL THE WAY OVER WITH THE ALT-RIGHT, AFTER ALL.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/07/bernie-sanders-democrats-medicare-primaries-241388
ELECTIONS
Sanders 'litmus test' alarms Democrats
Bernie Sanders' single-payer plan sparks fears of primary election challenges.
By GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI 08/07/2017 06:20 PM EDT

Photograph -- Sen. Bernie Sanders has decided the moment is right to launch his proposal for the single-payer health insurance system which helped formed the backbone of his presidential message.

House and Senate Democrats have wondered for months whether Bernie Sanders’ supporters might choose to focus their energy on launching primary challenges to party moderates in 2018. They’re about to get an answer.

Sanders has decided the moment is right to launch his proposal for the single-payer health insurance system that helped form the backbone of his presidential message. And Democrats who don’t get behind it could find themselves on the wrong side of the most energetic wing of the party — as well as the once and possibly future presidential candidate who serves as its figurehead.

The Vermont senator himself has not explicitly said he’ll support primary challenges to those who won’t support his push for a so-called Medicare-for-all health care plan. But there are plenty of signs that Sanders and his allies view the issue as a defining moment for Democratic lawmakers.

“Our view is that within the Democratic Party, this is fast-emerging as a litmus test,” said Ben Tulchin, the pollster for Sanders’ White House run.

The single-payer concept is increasingly popular in the party — high-profile senators like Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris have expressed some support, and, for the first time, a majority of House Democrats have now signed on to the single-payer bill that Rep. John Conyers has been introducing regularly for more than a decade.

But even as leading party figures have drifted toward supporting a single-payer system similar to the one proposed by Sanders, almost none of them expect anything like it to become law while Republicans control Washington.

With Sanders promising to play a major role in 2018 races, that’s led many party officials to worry about the prospect of his involvement in primaries that could upend the Democratic establishment’s plans to win crucial House, Senate and gubernatorial seats.

The fears are acute enough that when the Nevada chapter of Our Revolution — the political group spawned from the Sanders presidential campaign — endorsed long-shot candidate Jesse Sbaih in the state’s Democratic Senate primary over party favorite Rep. Jacky Rosen, retired former Sen. Harry Reid felt the need to call Sanders directly.

Don’t endorse Sbaih, and don’t let the national Our Revolution group accept its Nevada chapter's recommendation to back him either, the former minority leader implored his friend. Sanders agreed, said a Democrat familiar with the interaction.

“There’s a concern that [Sanders allied] people will try to make a stir,” said a senior Democratic aide working on a 2018 campaign. “You can’t just be a liberal Democrat in a lot of these states and be elected. [So] the question is how we improve the lives of people instead of playing these political games."

Sanders allies don’t find that argument convincing.

“Any Democrat worth their salt that doesn’t unequivocally say Medicare-for-all is the way to go? To me, there’s something wrong with them,” said former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, president of Our Revolution. “We’re not going to accept no more hemming and hawing. No more game playing. Make your stand.”

Sanders himself has stood alongside Democrats in fights like the recent one against the GOP’s health care plans. He’s toured states with wavering Republican senators to pressure them on the issue and quickly condemned a recent single-payer measure pushed by Republican Sen. Steve Daines as a ploy designed to trick Democrats.

His team has been working with fellow progressive senators to enlist co-sponsors for his measure, said Democrats across Capitol Hill. Within Sanders circles, the increased popularity of single-payer arrangements is seen as a sign that his long-promised "political revolution” is underway.

“He’s been vindicated by the presidential campaign,” said Mark Longabaugh, a senior Sanders 2016 campaign adviser.

The Vermont independent has signaled that he expects serious resistance even from Democrats, but he has yet to spell out how he'll fight back.

“We will be taking on the most powerful special interests in the country: Wall Street, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the corporate media, the Republican Party and the establishment wing of the Democratic Party,” he emailed supporters last Tuesday.

What’s clear is that Sanders’ large and politically active following has stopped Democrats from confronting him directly — including when it comes to offering alternatives to his Medicare-for-all measure. Many still remember the swift and angry January response from grass-roots progressives including Sanders supporters toward Booker for a symbolic drug importation vote, and toward Sen. Elizabeth Warren for her procedural vote in favor of Ben Carson’s nomination as Housing secretary.

“It represents the broader question of what the Democratic Party stands for, [so] this is a fundamental moment for Democratic senators. It’s an issue that everyone is going to be watching to see how they respond,” said Chuck Idelson, a senior operative for the National Nurses United union, which served as one of the most prominent backers of Sanders’ campaign and has long been a needle in the side of establishment Democrats.

Like many Democrats who are closely aligned with Sanders’ political operation, Idelson stopped short of primary threats. But he refused to rule out the possibility that his group might consider backing challenges of sitting Democratic lawmakers who don’t back the plan.

“Our organization, and plenty of other people out there, are going to be holding the Democrats accountable,” Idelson said. “What are we electing people for if they’re not going to be fighting for getting people health care when they need it?”

Other Sanders-allied progressives have been equally adamant on the need to give his Medicare-for-all push a starring role in forthcoming primaries after the recent Capitol Hill health care fights and the stalling of a much-publicized California state legislative proposal.

“We should run on Medicare-for-all in the 2018 and 2020 elections,” said Bay Area Congressman Ro Khanna, a Sanders backer who has encouraged primary challenges. “The Democrats that are activists are there, the Democratic voters are there, but now we just need enough of the elected officials to listen to where their constituents are.”

20170510msmEagle-Grove1506.jpeg
SPECIAL REPORT
Trump’s Trade Pullout Roils Rural America
By ADAM BEHSUDI

The distrust between Sanders forces and the establishment is increasing the tension. Some Democratic senators privately bristled at the health care rallies that Sanders and others organized across the country in January: They were shocked to be greeted by angry Sanders backers in the crowds who loudly urged them to back a single-payer plan, according to several Democratic senators and aides. There is also longstanding grumbling over his refusal to share his campaign email list with other Democrats and, more recently, over his vote against a new round of sanctions against Russia and Iran.

On the other side of the divide, Sanders allies insist the party seldom acknowledges the role of the senator’s 2016 presidential bid in shaping the party’s new agenda, whether on health care, a $15 minimum wage, or free college. And they express frustration that Democratic gatekeepers are still slow to accept Sanders’ likely front-runner role if he chooses to run for president in 2020.

In the words of one senior aide to Sanders’ campaign, “A special cloud of denial formed over the swamp when polls started coming out showing Bernie was the most popular politician in the country."


BIO ON SEN. NINA TURNER, PRESIDENT OF OUR REVOLUTION. NOTE: THIS HUFFINGTON POST WRITER ROSENSTEIN REALLY DOESN’T LIKE TURNER AT ALL – ON THE PERSONAL LEVEL, I THINK. I’M IGNORING THAT. THERE IS GOOD INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS IN THIS ARTICLE, AS IS USUALLY TRUE WITH HUFFINGTON POST.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nina-turner-our-revolution-president-from-democrat_us_595a4413e4b0c85b96c66373
Peter Rosenstein, Contributor
non-profit consultant, public speaker and political analyst
Nina Turner ‘Our Revolution’ President; From Democrat To Irrational
07/03/2017 09:42 am ET | Updated Jul 06, 2017

Upon taking over as president of ‘Our Revolution’, Bernie Sanders’ organization, Nina Turner was interviewed by Collier Meyerson and asked “How will Our Revolution relate to the DNC, the DCCC, the DSCC, that kind of establishment that so many activists and politicians, including you, have frequently criticized?” Her response was “I don’t think it is our job nor our obligation to fit in. It’s their job to fit in with us.” That mirrors how Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has handled his entire political career. It is also why he has few real accomplishments to his name after over forty years in office.

It may behoove Ms. Turner to take a few moments on this July 4th to reread our constitution and realize to make progress on her goals may require some compromise. That is how the founding fathers set up our government. It doesn’t mean compromising your principles, it does mean working steadily toward your goals. Winston Churchill is credited with saying “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Meyerson went on to ask “And how will Our Revolution relate to progressives within government who didn’t back Bernie, like Sherrod Brown and Tammy Baldwin, if they go on to seek reelection?” Her response is an indication of what is clearly self-destructive about both Nina Turner and ‘Our Revolution’. She said about those two successful and respected progressives “If they want Our Revolution’s endorsement they will seek it like everybody else and so they gotta start with the local affiliates, and if the local affiliates say that this is the person that we want to back, then there it is. There it is.”

So ‘Our Revolution’ isn’t about supporting progressives or helping people learn how the system works so they can move forward progressive change. Rather it is about catering to groups of local activists, often self-indulgent, to the point of taking action that actually hurts the causes they believe in. To bring about change one has to understand the system; understanding how Congress works. Like it or not when it comes to Congress there are only two parties, Democrat and Republican. If you don’t work to support one of them you are helping the other. We saw that in the last Presidential election and we saw it in 2000 when we ended up with George W. Bush.

One must wonder what turned Nina Turner from a rational Democrat who won her legislative seat running as a Democrat in Ohio to the irrational person she appears to be today. She served in Ohio as a Democrat from 2008 to 2014 then lost her race for Secretary of State in 2014.

There were a number of other surprising statements from Turner in the same Meyerson interview. They include who ‘Our Revolution’ would consider endorsing. She said “And for me, I’ve also heard the senator (referring to Sanders) say this lately too: Let’s put the political affiliation to the side. If there is a Republican or a Libertarian or Green Party person that believes in Medicare for all, then that’s our kind of person. If there’s somebody that believes that Citizens United needs to be overturned, that we need the 28th amendment to the Constitution that declares that money, corporate money, is not speech and that corporations should not have more speech than Mrs. Johnson down the street and Mr. Gonzalez around the corner, then that’s our kind of people.”

Does ‘Our Revolution’ not have a responsibility to the people who fund the organization, and the ones Turner wants to recruit, to explain a simple fact; there will be a Republican or Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives and a Democratic or Republican Majority Leader in the United States Senate. There will not be a Libertarian or Green Party member in those positions. She should explain to her donors if the first vote of any person they help elect to Congress is not for Democrat leadership all their objectives will be non-starters. They won’t even be on the agenda for debate.

One is forced to assume what Ms. Turner is now doing is more for self-aggrandizement and less about getting anything done. I met Nina Turner once at a Ready for Hillary event in New York City. She spoke passionately about Hillary and why she would make a great president. She is a good speaker and excited her audience. The next time I heard of her she had gone through some personal epiphany and became a rabid anti-Hillary Sanders supporter. It might be in the Clinton campaign she would have been one of thousands and with the Sanders campaign she was special.

When the Democrats had a chance, however small, to win in Georgia she criticized Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff as not being progressive enough. She said that in an interview where she was trying to justify a Sanders type candidate and talking about how Trump won 70 percent of the vote in 30 Ohio counties. What she conveniently forgot is in the Ohio primary Hillary only lost fourteen Ohio counties to Sanders and won by nearly 15 percent. So trying to say a Sanders type of candidate in Georgia would be better is looking at the world with a myopic view and will keep ‘Our Revolution’ from being the success it could be if they worked with Democratic candidates across the nation instead of trying to divide the liberal and progressive movement.

One example of ‘Our Revolution’ working to divide was their support of Tom Perriello in Virginia. He was a late entry into the Democratic Gubernatorial primary against a progressive Democrat who had the support of every elected Democrat in the state. Perriello was a candidate whose progressive credentials had to be questioned. In his one term in Congress he supported the Stupack amendment barring funding for abortions and voted against the assault weapon ban. His campaign was financed 57 percent by people outside of Virginia and by mostly big donors, two of whom each contributed $500,000. But contrary to Turner’s idol Sanders, Tom Perriello handled his loss with grace. Rather than play games he immediately and graciously endorsed the winner, Dr. Ralph Northam, pledging his unequivocal and enthusiastic support. I still haven’t heard from Turner or ‘Our Revolution’ about their endorsement of this progressive Democrat.

I would hope Turner rethinks some of her statements if she wants ‘Our Revolution’ to have a lasting impact other than helping elect Republicans by splitting the progressive vote. We are seeing that again in Maryland where there are a host of progressive Democrats looking to run against Republican Governor Larry Hogan in 2018 and the local ‘Our Revolution’ group is working in secret to make an early endorsement of one candidate who was on the ‘Our Revolution’ board until he declared his candidacy. They are creating dissent within the Maryland progressive movement by doing that. Educating these local groups on how to win, not just make noise, would be important.

Bernie Sanders, Nina Turner and ‘Our Revolution’ have every right to speak out and do as they choose. But if they really want to move forward a Progressive agenda they will help to unite progressives, not divide them. They will recognize the reality that in a general election it is either a Republican or a Democrat who wins and if you aren’t voting for the Democrat you are helping the Republican. Whether we like it or not in the United States we basically have a two Party system. Democrats have the more progressive agenda and Republicans have Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Nina Turner should ask herself, who do you and ‘Our Revolution’ want to lead our nation?


TRUMP HAS MADE ANOTHER FACTUALLY INACCURATE (BLUSTERING) STATEMENT THAT AN EXPERT HAS BEEN FORCED TO DENY BEFORE THE WHOLE NATION AND THE WORLD. TRUMP NEVER SHOWS REGRET ABOUT WHAT HE HAS SAID OR DONE, AND ITS TRUE IN THIS CASE. HOW DOES BEING IN THIS KIND OF BAD LIGHT MAKE TRUMP FEEL MORE POWERFUL AND IMPORTANT? AS BERNIE SANDERS SAID RIGHT AFTER THE ELECTION, HE’S “A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.” A NORTH KOREAN LEADER, GENERAL KIM RAK GYOM, THE HEAD OF THE COUNTRY’S STRATEGIC FORCE, SAID OF HIM YESTERDAY THAT HE IS “BEREFT OF REASON.” TOO TRUE.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-launch-ballistic-missiles-us-territory-guam-nuclear-war-rhetoric/
CBS NEWS August 10, 2017, 6:47 AM
N. Korea lays out plan to land missiles near U.S. island

Play VIDEO -- Trump: U.S. nuclear arsenal "more powerful than ever before"

Given North Korea's steady progress in building nuclear weapons, it is no longer possible to simply dismiss its threats of destroying American cities and military bases as mere bluster.

As CBS News' David Martin reports, the regime's latest warning included a very specific threat to the U.S.

RELATED:
Richardson: N. Korea's missile progress shows "massive" U.S. intel failure
What are U.S. non-military options to deal with North Korea?
U.S. military options in standoff with nuclear-armed North Korea

Tensions escalate as North Korean military threatens to attack Guam
Play VIDEO
Tensions escalate as North Korean military threatens to attack Guam

Sometime in mid-August, North Korea says it is planning for the simultaneous launch of four non-nuclear Hwasong-12 rockets that would fly over the islands of Japan and into the ocean, landing just 18 to 25 miles from the U.S. airbase on the island territory of Guam.

North Korean state television said the launch would be sent as a warning to the U.S. -- pending approval from Kim Jong Un.

The threat came hours after U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned that further action by North Korea could lead to "the end of its regime and the destruction of its people."

He spoke on his way to tour the USS Kentucky, a ballistic missile submarine that, by itself, can carry 200 nuclear warheads. North Korea is estimated to have, at most, several dozen nuclear weapons.

The New Cold War
Play VIDEO
The New Cold War

When "60 Minutes" went aboard the Kentucky last summer, the sub's captain, Brian Freck, described the destructive power it carries.

"The warheads that can be carried on my missiles are extremely powerful," he said -- "much more powerful" than the American bomb that levelled the Japanese city of Hiroshima during World War II.

Up to 30 times more powerful, notes Martin, and the Kentucky is just one of several U.S. ballistic missile submarines which, on any given day, are hiding somewhere in the world's oceans.

In a tweet yesterday, President Trump claimed he had updated and modernized the U.S. nuclear arsenal since he took office in January, saying "it is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before."

Nuclear weapons experts, however, including independent analyst Jon Wolfsthal, dispute the president's claim that any changes have occurred since he became commander in chief.

"There have been no changes to the U.S. nuclear arsenal," he tells CBS News. "Some of the numbers have actually gone down from where they were when President Trump took office, so I view his statements as much more posturing and trying to project strength."

The Kentucky alone can carry enough nuclear weapons to annihilate North Korea. There is no question who would win a conflict between the U.S. and the North, says Martin.

The question, which no one can answer yet, is can it be avoided?



THIS ARTICLE SAYS A LOT OF GOOD STUFF. IT DOESN’T SAY, HOWEVER, THAT THE VERY PRESENCE OF ALL THAT CORPORATE AND BILLIONAIRE MONEY HAS IMPRISONED THE PARTY CANDIDATES, BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, WITHIN A GOLDEN CAGE. IT’S A PRETTY CAGE, BUT THEY CAN’T GET OUT. THEY OWE THEIR SOULS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A GROUP, TO THE COMPANY STORE. THEY HAVE BEEN FULLY COOPTED BY THE 1%. WORST OF ALL, THOUGH, THEY ARE CHANGELINGS WHO BELIEVE NOW AS THAT PRIVILEGED GROUP DO, AND OBEY THEM. IN OTHER WORDS, POLITICIANS NEED TO DO MORE THAN TALK THE TALK. THEY NEED TO MAKE REALLY HELPFUL LAWS AGAIN AND LEAD A GRASS ROOTS, MARCH IN THE STREETS KIND OF PARTY.

AS THE DEMOCRATS ARE TODAY, THEY CAN’T COMPETE WITH THE GENUINELY FELT AND (FAIRLY) REVOLUTIONARY VIEWS AND PERSONAL STYLE OF BERNIE SANDERS. IF, IN 2016, THEY HAD INCLUDED HIM IN THE PARTY AND REVISED THEIR PLATFORM – BEFORE THE ELECTION – I BELIEVE CLINTON WOULD HAVE WON AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WOULD NOT BE ABOUT TO FALL APART. IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT, JUST LOOK AND LISTEN TO THE IMMENSE RESPONSE SANDERS GOT WHEN HE FIRST WALKED OUT ON THE STAGE AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, AND AT THE THREE THOUSAND STRONG CROWDS ON HIS CAMPAIGN TRIPS.

I ALSO BELIEVE THAT A BERNIE SANDERS WITH AN ELIZABETH WARREN AS VICE PRESIDENT COULD WIN TODAY AGAINST TRUMP. NOT ALL OF THE “POPULISTS” ARE ANTI-GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE JUST TIRED OF BEING SPAT UPON. THEY’RE “MAD AS HELL, AND AREN’T GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.” THINGS LIKE WAITING 20, 30 MINUTES TO TALK TO A COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE ILLUSTRATES A LOT OF THE PROBLEM. WE HAVE BECOME A FACELESS SOCIETY. LOOKING FOR JOBS ON THE INTERNET BECAUSE BUSINESSES JUST DON’T SEE POTENTIAL WORKERS IN PERSON ANYMORE FOR A FIRST CONTACT, IS ALSO SO VERY DISCOURAGING. HUMANS NEED ONE TO ONE RELATIONSHIPS, IN ORDER TO BE PSYCHOLOGICALLY HEALTHY AND “SATISFIED.” IT IS DEPRESSING AND INFURIATING NOT TO HAVE THAT.

I AM MOST CONCERNED WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HERE, BECAUSE I’M ON THE PROGRESSIVE SIDE OF THINGS. MY DEAR OLD PARTY, THE DEMOCRATS, HAVE INCREASINGLY DEPARTED FROM THEIR “LITTLE D” PRINCIPLES. THEY DON’T RESPOND TO WHAT THEIR CONSTITUENCIES NEED IN THEIR DAILY LIVES AND BELIEVE IN WITH THE BEST PARTS OF THEIR MINDS. THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS REVOLUTION LOST US A GOODLY CHUNK OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS IN THE NEW DEAL THROUGH THE 1970S. IN 1960, THOSE “WORKING POOR” KNEW WHICH SIDE THEIR BREAD WAS BUTTERED ON, AND THEY VOTED DEMOCRAT. UNFORTUNATELY, IN 1964 THEY WERE NO LONGER WITH US. NOT KILLING BLACK PEOPLE WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD AGREE TO, BUT GOING TO SCHOOL AND EATING IN THE SAME RESTAURANT WITH THEM WAS OUT OF BOUNDS. I THOUGHT WE HAD MADE PROGRESS AWAY FROM THAT, BUT I WAS WRONG, AND THE ALT-RIGHT FACTORS AND THE DOG WHISTLING OF DONALD TRUMP BROUGHT THE PURPOSELY UNENLIGHTENED FORWARD EN MASSE.

THE DEEPEST FLAWS OF AMERICAN SOCIETY, IN MY STRONGLY HELD VIEWS, ARE RACISM, GREED, THE TRUE NATURE OF THE MODERN “AMERICAN DREAM,” AND A GENERALIZED IGNORANCE. I DON’T MEAN THAT AMERICANS ARE STUPID, BUT THAT THEY VALUE A SHINY NEW CAR MORE THAN A LIBERAL EDUCATION. A BOOK LIKE “50 SHADES OF GREY” IS NOT REJECTED OUT OF HAND, AS IT SHOULD BE. INTELLECTUALS ARE “POINTY-HEADED” AND “NERDS.” EDUCATION MEANS TO THEM A PATH TO A HIGHER INCOME, AND ONLY THAT. READING THE CLASSICS IS NO LONGER ON THEIR AGENDA. WE HAVE DECLINED AS A SOCIETY FROM THE INSIDE OUT, AS A DIRECT REFLECTION OF AN INCREASINGLY MERCENARY AND CLASSIST MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASS. SUSTENANCE, FAIRNESS AND ENLIGHTENMENT FOR ALL ISN’T THE AMERICAN DREAM ANYMORE. WE ARE NOT WILLING TO BE “THE MELTING POT.” WORKING PEOPLE, OR WORSE, JOBLESS PEOPLE, ARE SCORNED ANEW. “LET THEM EAT CAKE!”

I HAD MY PRIME YEARS IN A “GOLDEN AGE,” WHICH IS NOW RAPIDLY SHRIVELING. THE DEMOCRATS NO LONGER REPRESENT THOSE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES OF THE NEW DEAL. IN ADDITION, THEY ACTUALLY MAKE LAWS TO PLEASE ONLY THE WEALTHY JUST AS THE REPUBLICANS DO. “I HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY, AND THEY IS US,” – TO QUOTE ONE OF THE GREAT PHILOSOPHERS OF ALL TIME. THE WHOLE INNER ATTITUDES OF OUR DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERS (SUPERDELEGATES) HAVE BEEN TAINTED BY THE CORPORATE AND BILLIONAIRE MONEY, WHICH INEVITABLY COMES “WITH STRINGS ATTACHED.” PUTTING ON THE CLOTHING OF BERNIE SANDERS (I DON’T QUITE INCLUDE WARREN WITH BERNIE, BECAUSE SHE SOLD OUT TO HILLARY BEFORE THE ELECTION) IS LIKE THE CROW ADORNING HIMSELF WITH PEACOCK FEATHERS. IT ISN’T CONVINCING.

I AM ONE OF THOSE IDEALISTS WHO BELIEVE THAT, IF WE WERE TO HAVE “A GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME FOR ALL,” RATHER THAN JUST FOR THE GROUPS WHO CAN’T COMPETE AT ALL FINANCIALLY, OFFERED AS A SOP TO OUR GROUP CONSCIENCE, ALONG WITH A GOOD BASIC LIBERAL EDUCATION FOR ALL -- A LA THE ABILITY TO READ TRULY EFFECTIVELY, UNDERSTAND MATH AND SCIENCE, THINK AS A DEMOCRATICALLY ORIENTED CITIZEN, LEARN TO CARE ABOUT OTHERS, HAVE SOME SPECIALIZATION THAT WOULD BRING THEM A BETTER JOB – THOSE THINGS WOULD TRANSFORM THE AMERICAN POPULACE. WE HAVE FALLEN BEHIND IN TOO MANY WAYS. THAT’S OUR MODERN-DAY PROBLEM. THE PEOPLE WOULD KNOW WHAT WAS GOOD FOR THEM AND TELL CONGRESS CONVINCINGLY WHAT THEY MUST HAVE IN THE LEGAL/SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STRUCTURE. THEN, BEHIND THEM WOULD WALK A TAMED AND NEWLY PRINCIPLED CONGRESS, BECAUSE TO DO OTHERWISE WOULD NO LONGER BE TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. AN EDUCATED PUBLIC IS MUCH HARDER TO FOOL WITH RANTS AND RED HATS.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-try-co-opt-populist-rage-hilarity-ensues-090005021.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=d60f07a0-5458-3fc6-9b58-ef8ea65bcd5a&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Democrats try to co-opt populist rage. Hilarity ensues.
Yahoo News
Matt Bai
August 10, 2017

Photograph -- Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Aug. 2, unveiling “A Better Deal on Trade & Jobs.” (Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)

Washington was abuzz this week with talk about the new Democratic agenda, “A Better Deal,” which is suddenly dominating news coverage and captivating voters with a plan to remake the American economy, sending Republicans scrambling for a viable platform of their own in advance of the midterm elections.

No, not really. I just wanted to see if you were paying attention on the beach.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN??

In reality, with Congress and the president out of town right now, Washington is deader than a Chick-fil-A on Sunday. Bored TV commentators would rather analyze every nuance of President Trump’s latest tweetstorm than spend a second debating trade policy.

And the agenda I mentioned, which Democrats began rolling out a few weeks ago in a series of choreographed events, has impressed pretty much no one.

The slogan, which apparently took months of focus-grouping to perfect, rather than the five seconds of idle thought while doing the laundry that you would think it required, evokes — yet again — memories of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, which remain powerful in exactly two places in America: nursing homes and Democratic leadership meetings.

Critics of the plan were quick to point out that it wasn’t really a plan at all — more like a collection of greatest hits like public infrastructure spending (1984), job retraining (1992) and monopoly busting (1896).

But the more profound and more overlooked problem with this “Better Deal” proclamation isn’t actually about its language or its gauziness. It’s more about the underlying philosophy, which misreads in some fundamental way the core appeal of Trump’s campaign.

Democrats are trying to do a couple of things with this new marketing push. One is to answer this question of what they actually want to achieve, aside from impeaching the president. In announcing the new slogan, Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, lamented that “too many Americans don’t know what we stand for” before boldly declaring: “Not after today.”

Because nothing redefines a party in the public mind like a slogan unveiled by congressional leaders at a podium. That’s always worked before.

The other and perhaps more urgent objective is to co-opt some of the populist fury that’s simmering right now in the Democratic base, before it overwhelms the party establishment in the same way that Trump toppled leading Republicans. Schumer and his compatriots are trying to convincingly adopt the ethos of the anti-corporate politicians who appeal most to their activists — namely Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

It’s worth taking a moment here to consider what being a populist party actually means in 2017.

Broadly speaking, populism is the practice of galvanizing the majority of the people against powerful and oppressive interests in the society. In the late 19th century and well into the 20th, populism necessarily translated into an assault on industrial-age business.

View photos

This made sense. The most powerful institutions in American life were ascendant corporations, which concentrated their collective energy on exploiting both workers and consumers for profit.

There was no central government to speak of back then, no balancing force on behalf of Americans who weren’t part of the industrial or financial elite. It took a series of populist leaders — most notably the two Roosevelts in the White House — to shatter the grip of corporate trusts and establish an essential counterbalance in the public sector.

Almost a century later, however, the meaning of populism is a little more complicated. Yes, a lot of Americans remain deeply suspicious of banks and multinational corporations, especially those that move manufacturing overseas. That’s a reliably strong current in our politics.

But we also depend on companies like Walmart and Target for affordable drugs, groceries and toys for our kids. The fastest-growing and most ubiquitous companies in America now aren’t in oil or steel; they’re Apple and Amazon and Google. You don’t sense a lot of populist outrage over next-day shipping.

Meanwhile, government bureaucracies have grown exponentially in both size and power. If you went out on the street anywhere in America and asked people what the most powerful institutions in American life are today, I’m betting almost everyone would name Washington in their top three.

And not just powerful but, to a lot of Americans, oppressive, too. It’s not so much the taxes people pay, which really aren’t all that onerous in most cases; yelling about taxes is really just a way of voicing general disdain.

It’s the TSA guy barking at you in the airport, or the woman at the DMV who rejected your paperwork, or the county inspector who threatened to shut down your shop over some obscure code. It’s the VA hospital that won’t give you an appointment, or the detox facility with no beds.

More than any of that, though, it’s the promises that never seem to be kept, year after year — of jobs, of affordable college, of renewal in abandoned towns. For decades now, since the onset of globalization and technological upheaval, politicians have been telling people they’ve got this or that plan to reverse the decline. They don’t.

According to the latest data from the indispensable Pew Research Center, about 55 percent of Americans are frustrated with the federal government, and only 20 percent say they trust the government to do what’s right most or all of the time. The partisan divides here shift from year to year, but the pervasive sentiment is remarkably constant.

View photos

This, at least among a lot of independent and less ideological voters, is what Trump tapped into last year with his silly red hat. Sure, he mouthed a lot of platitudes about setting Wall Street straight (and then hired the top echelon of Goldman Sachs to work in his White House). But it was his indictment of government generally — and the establishments of both parties — that ultimately washed away the Clintonian argument for faith in the governing class.

What this means is that populism as a purely economic proposition — the people versus their corporate overlords — is too limiting a construct in modern politics. Any winning populist critique probably has to extend to the failures of the federal bureaucracy, too.

Democrats don’t like to hear this. They represent the party of government, and they fear that if they acknowledge its flaws or anachronisms, they will essentially be validating the conservative argument.

But that’s not right, and it’s self-defeating. You can be pro-government and still make the case for fundamental reform and modernization, as Gary Hart and Bill Clinton once did. That’s just admitting reality.

What does the “Better Deal” have to say about this?

Among the precious few new policy ideas Democrats now propose is the creation of yet more government agencies to rein in corporate excess and unfair trade. Praising this proposal in The Nation, the liberal writer David Dayen noted that “building new agencies with targeted missions was a hallmark of the New Deal.”

Right. Except this isn’t 1933. We have all the agencies we can handle now, and we don’t trust them a whole lot to begin with.

A party that believes more government will solve everything can’t really call itself populist in any modern sense of the word. It’s more just anti-business and anti-Trump.

I’d be surprised if most Americans — or at least the ones you need to win back majorities — consider that much of a deal at all.