August 10, 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.



THIS JOGGER DIDN’T JUST BUMP INTO THE WOMAN AS THE ARTICLE SAID. HE SHOVED HER WITH HIS RIGHT HAND AS THEY PASSED EACH OTHER, KNOCKING HER BACKWARD AND ALMOST IN FRONT OF THE WHEELS OF AN ONCOMING BUS. IT WAS A PURPOSEFUL AND AGGRESSIVE ACTION. NONETHELESS, HE HAS BEEN “RELEASED PENDING FURTHER INQUIRIES.” WHAT OTHER INQUIRIES? THEY HAVE FULL AND CLEAR VIDEO FOOTAGE OF THE WHOLE THING. I SUPPOSE HE’S WEALTHY. MAYBE BECAUSE HE DIDN’T SUCCEED IN KILLING HER, THERE WAS NO CRIME.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/putney-bridge-jogger-arrest-suspect-police-video-woman-pushed-bus-path/
CBS/AP August 10, 2017, 2:05 PM
Video shows jogger pushing woman into bus' path on London bridge

LONDON -- British police searching for a jogger who knocked a woman into the path of a London bus arrested a man Thursday.

London's Metropolitan Police force said the 50-year-old was arrested at a home in the Chelsea area of the city on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm.

He was later released pending further inquiries.

Earlier this week, police released surveillance camera footage of the May 5 incident on Putney Bridge.

It shows a jogger in shorts and a T-shirt banging into a pedestrian, who tumbles in front of a double-decker bus. The bus swerves to avoid hitting the woman, who suffered minor injuries.

VIDEO -- A CCTV image, received via the Metropolitan Police, shows a male jogger on Putney Bridge in London May 5, 2017. METROPOLITAN POLICE HANDOUT VIA REUTERS

Police said the bus stopped, and passengers rushed to the 33-year-old's aid.

About 15 minutes after the incident, the victim saw the jogger crossing back across the bridge, police said. She tried speaking with him, but he just kept jogging.

Police said Thursday's arrest followed a "good response" from the public to the video.

The arrested man hasn't been charged and his name hasn't been released.



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 HASN’T REALLY BEEN THE CENTER FOR AWHILE NOW, BUT THE RIGHT. WE NEED A LEFTWARD MOVE FOR THE ENTIRE PARTY JUST TO GET BACK 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. 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 HAVE TO FORM AN UNDERGROUND FIGHTING GROUP OR SOMETHING AS HORRIBLE, AND THAT MEANS RIGHT NOW 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.

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.