#far right wing candidate winning the elections pushed me over the limit

[latin-dr-robotnik]

is it me or are we all kinda falling down a cliff right now?

[qqueenofhades]

Okay, y'all. Time to do this one more time. Let the fact that there are so many of these posts right now reinforce the point. Many of you already know this, and I see and love you, but for anyone still ~undecided about their choice, should they be an American citizen of voting age on November 3, 2020:

Time to not be. It was time a long, long while ago, but I am going to have to say it again.

Primary season is over. The endless fine-tooth combing of candidates' policies and positions is over. We are all deeply well aware that the candidates on the Democratic ticket, being human beings and establishment politicians, are flawed. "BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS POSITION FROM 19/ 20-WHENEVER AS JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY IT'S TERRIBLE TO VOTE FOR -- "

No. Stop. Just stop. Stop threatening to hold the rest of us hostage, in the middle of a pandemic, the Great Depression, and racial inequality and protests on a scale not seen from the 1960s, because you did not get Barbie Dream Candidate. That is the behavior of terrorists and toddlers. If your supposedly enlightened morally pure ideology does not involve any action to mitigate the harm that is directly in front of you, it isn't worth a shit as an ideology actually devoted to helping people. If your approach to politics is to shout about how Pure your ideas are on twitter and tear down anyone working within a system of flawed choices to do the good that they can: you're not helping, and frankly, your constant threats to withhold your suffrage as a punishment to us aren't convincing the rest of us that we really need to listen to you or that you have anyone's best interests at heart. The Online Left TM is as much a vacuous, self-reinforcing noise chamber as the Online Right TM, and can sometimes tend to be even more dangerous.

I was saying this in 2016. A lot of us were saying this in 2016. I am just about to turn 32 years old and have been voting in federal elections for almost 15 years. For what it's worth.

This is not an ordinary election. This is not a contest between two flawed candidates who respect the system and want to work to enact their policies in the ordinary way. One is a flawed 90s era Democrat who nonetheless has already been pushed CONSIDERABLY left in his policies and platforms since the end of the primaries (and his existing platform would already make him the most left president elected, even more than Obama). The other is a fascist dictator who has openly spoken about refusing to accept the election results, his desire to abolish term limits and serve for life, and complete the pillaging of any remaining fragile American public funds for him and his cult of cronies. He does not respect the system. He does not want to do anything for anyone that is not himself. 160,000 and counting needless deaths of American citizens have already happened. Will keep happening.

This is the last time Trump has to face voters. This is the last chance the country has to repudiate his entire poisonous ideology and its marching Nazi minions. IF he steps aside, which is already far from guaranteed, he can ride off into the sunset as a vindicated two term president and probably be rehabilitated like George W. Bush was within a few years of leaving office. American political memory is very short. It will happen. Again, if he even leaves.

RBG is 87 and has cancer again. She will NOT survive another four years. Stephen Breyer is 81. Their seats could both come up in the next four years. The Supreme Court could be a right wing rubber stamp for whatever time we all have left before climate change and coronavirus kill us all.

"But if people just thought for themselves and did their homework and didn't vote the party line like sheep, we could support a third party/write in -- " Stop. Just stop. Attend a ninth grade civics class and learn about how politics work in America. Yes, the two-party system sucks. Yes, the Electoral College is a hot steaming pile of absolute bullshit. Magical unicorn fairy dust fantasies WILL NOT change that.

Do not vote for Kanye (who has pretty much openly admitted he is trying to play spoiler to Biden on behalf of his buddy Trump). Do not vote for godforsaken fucking Gary Johnson or Jill Stein who appear on ballots just to give sanctimonious leftists the illusion of virtue-signaling. If you want any chance of fixing the mess that 2020 has left America and the world in, you need to vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The end.

Biden is a flawed old man who was our last choice, sure. He is also a distinguished public servant who has already been in the White House for eight years under Obama and thus we KNOW what to expect. He is an empathetic man who connects with people's personal tragedy and picked as his running mate a younger Black/biracial woman who directly confronted and called him out on past behavior. While the pundit class was simpering and whining about how it was Disrespectful and how could he consider her, Biden did so, and that speaks well to me of the fact that he is willing to learn, to take criticism, and not just accept it from a former Black female rival, but make her his second in command and the potential first female president of the United States.

Can you EVER picture Trump doing that? Not in eight thousand million years.

As for Kamala, we are all aware of her previous checkered history as a prosecutor (and even then, she did plenty of good things as well!). Since joining the Senate, however, she has consistently become one of its most progressive members. She is the co-sponsor of an economic aid package designed to give every American $2,000/month, backdated to March (the start of the coronavirus pandemic) and continuing at least a few months after its end. A Biden-Harris White House could make that happen. Especially if they are put into office with a Democratic House and Senate (for the love of God, Kentucky, kill Mitch McConnell with fire). That is just one example.

Harris's nomination is obviously historic. And Biden didn't choose another Biden (or another Tim Kaine, the blandest white man imaginable). He chose another Obama: a younger rising star of an immigrant background, a person of color, a former lawyer and someone who represents the diversity of the country that the white supremacists and the Cheeto in Chief have tried to paint as its worst and most degenerate evil.

A vote for Biden and Harris means getting rid not just of Trump, but Mike Pence, Vladimir Putin, Jared Kushner, Betsy Devos, the Trump crony destroying the Postal Service, the rampant coronavirus misinformation and bullshit, the destruction of Social Security and Medicare, the spread of Nazi propaganda from the President's twitter account, the likely two Supreme Court picks that would be as bad as Brett Kavanaugh or worse... on and on. Biden and Harris would be elected by progressive voters and thus answerable to them in 2022 midterms and 2024 general. They can both be, and already have been, pushed further left. They are reasonable and competent adults who have demonstrated experience and compassion. I KNOW about their flaws and past actions I don't agree with. But I'm frankly done with any more counterproductive straw man bitching about This One Bad Thing They Did and how it makes it a terribad awful choice to vote for them. Open your eyes. Look at the alternative. LOOK AT WHAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT EVEN AS BAD AS IT COULD STILL GET.

Check your registration or register at vote.gov.

DO NOT LOOK AT POLLS AND DECIDE "EH BIDEN IS CLEARLY GOING TO WIN, I DON'T NEED TO VOTE." THAT IS HOW WE LOST LAST TIME.

Unseating incumbents is HARD. It is even harder when the other side has openly laid out their plan to cheat in great detail, and there is nothing really stopping them from doing it. The only thing, in fact, is massive, unfalsifiable results on an undeniable scale.

So:

Vote.

Vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Thanks a lot.

[jerseydeanne]

George Soros, the billionaire investor and liberal donor, sat in his hotel suite by Lake Zurich last week, lamenting the turn much of the world has taken in recent years: "Everything that could go wrong has gone wrong."

His favored presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, lost to President Donald Trump, whose "America First" platform runs counter to the globalism Soros embraces. Trump, he said, "is willing to destroy the world." The European Union, which Soros once hoped would be so successful that he could end his charitable work in the region, is contending with the impending loss of Britain and a rise of anti-immigrant sentiment. And Soros himself has emerged as a political target in elections from Hungary to California, where his donations have been used as a cudgel against the causes he supports.

The 87-year-old Holocaust survivor, who has poured much of his fortune into promoting liberal values around the globe, is now confronting a wave of nationalist sentiment washing against issues he has championed.

But rather than recede from public life in his twilight years, Soros has decided to push even harder for his agenda, he told The Washington Post in a rare interview

"The bigger the danger, the bigger the threat, the more I feel engaged to confront it," Soros said Thursday. Wearing an open-collar shirt, he spoke animatedly for an hour, sitting at a table in his suite after an appearance at a Human Rights Watch conference.

Confronting brick walls

Soros' willingness to remain in the fray comes as he faces renewed vilification from a wide-ranging group of opponents that includes actress Roseanne Barr and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has been accused of being an all-powerful puppet master, a Nazi sympathizer and the person controlling the Democratic Party.

He acknowledges that the attacks can blunt his impact.

"It makes it very difficult for me to speak effectively because it can be taken out of context and used against me," Soros said.

For all the billions of dollars at his disposal, Soros is also being forced to reckon with limits on his political influence in the United States. He acknowledged that he did not see Trump's election coming. "Apparently, I was living in my own bubble," he said.

Soros, who plans to spend at least $15 million in 2018 races, has already faced some setbacks this cycle. His bid to replace several district attorneys in California with challengers seeking changes to the criminal justice system was largely unsuccessful in Tuesday's elections. "We ran into a brick wall in California," he said.

Soros said he is certain in his assessment of Trump, whom he describes as a "narcissist" who "considers himself all-powerful."

But he does not appear settled on the strategy to defeat him. Soros said he disapproves of a campaign by fellow liberal billionaire Tom Steyer to push to impeach the president, saying he would only support such an effort if Democrats retake Congress this year and gain Republican support.

Soros, who said he wants to avoid dividing the party, also refused to pick favorites among the emerging crop of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders. But there is one prospective candidate he said he hopes does not get the nod: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.

He blames Gillibrand for pushing the resignation of former senator Al Franken "whom I admire," Soros said, "in order to improve her chances."

Franken resigned in January after a number of women alleged that he touched them inappropriately. Gillibrand was a leading voice urging her fellow Democrat to quit.

She declined to comment.

Earlier this year, Patrick Gaspard, the former Obama White House political director who now runs Soros' Open Society Foundations, said he asked the billionaire how he viewed the organization's role at a time when so much of Soros' work is under assault.

"This is the moment we were built for," Soros responded, according to Gaspard.

The Hungarian-born Soros, who became one of the world's wealthiest people by managing hedge funds and betting on currency changes, has given away billions of dollars to groups promoting human rights, democracy and liberal causes.

His New York-based Open Society Foundations now spends $940 million a year in 100 countries, promoting values such as free speech and free elections, according to the group. In the United States, the Open Society spends $150 million a year financing groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood.

For a period of time, Soros was the largest private donor in Russia, funding initiatives such as an anti-torture program, according to the foundation. Two years ago, Putin's government effectively banned Soros' group from distributing funds in the country, calling it "undesirable" and "a threat to the fundamentals of the constitutional system."

Last week, Putin suggested that Soros's spending around the world resembles the kind of political interference that U.S. intelligence officials blame on Russia.

"He intervenes in things all over the world," Putin told Austrian television. "But the State Department will tell you that it has nothing to do with that, that this is the personal business of Mr. Soros."

Elsewhere in Europe, Soros has also come under attack. This year, Viktor Orban, the right-wing prime minister of Hungary, won reelection after charging that Soros wanted to flood Europe with Muslim immigrants. Orban said one of his first efforts would be to pass a "Stop Soros" bill, aimed at cracking down on organizations he views as countering his agenda.

"I'm painfully aware that they are against the ideas that I stand for," Soros said of his critics around the world.

2016 and Trump

In the United States, Soros was initially seen as an ally by Republicans who shared his opposition to communist dictators. He made modest donations to support the GOP in the 1980s and 1990s, according to campaign finance reports.

But he turned decisively against Republicans after President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 based on faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction.

Since then, his political spending - a fraction of the money he gives away every year - has made him one of the Democratic Party's most reliable and generous donors.

In 2016, he poured at least $25 million into mobilizing Democratic voters in an effort to bolster Clinton and other candidates on the left, a Soros spokesman said.

In the final days of the White House race, Trump spoke in his closing television ad about sending a tough message to "global special interests" who wanted to control Washington, as images of Soros and other financial leaders who are Jewish flashed on the screen amid footage of Clinton.

Soros, who describes himself as an agnostic Jew, said he considered the ad "a coded anti-Semitic message."

On Election Day, Soros gathered with friends to watch returns in his Fifth Avenue duplex, overlooking the reservoir of New York's Central Park.

As the returns came in, "the party turned into a wake," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, who was one of the guests.

Soros said he spent months studying what went wrong in the election. He said he concluded that while Clinton would have made a "very good president," she was not a good campaigner. "She was too much like a schoolmarm," Soros said. "Talking down to people . . . instead of listening to them."

But he said he also diagnosed a larger problem: the increasing ease with which people's opinions can be manipulated. "It is so much easier to destroy trust than to build it up," Soros said.

Soros has known Trump for years. Decades ago, the two men dined together several times at the Berkshire estate of a mutual friend, Soros said.

"I had no idea he had political ambitions, but I didn't like his behavior as a businessman," he said.

At one point, he said, Trump asked him to be the lead tenant in a new office building he was developing in New York City.

"Name your price," Trump said, according to Soros. Soros said he declined because he was concerned that being so closely associated with the developer, whose Atlantic City casinos were financially troubled at the time, would hurt "my reputation."

The White House and the Trump Organization did not respond to requests for comment.

Soros said that if Democrats win in a "landslide" and forge a bipartisan relationship with moderate Republicans, as he expects, then he would favor impeaching Trump "because he is endangering the United States and the world."

But even then, there would be a cost, he said: "This would make [Vice President] Mike Pence the president, who is much more competent in representing the far right, whose views with which I disagree, than Trump himself."

Races, donations, defiance

This cycle, Soros has focused his political investments on congressional races and mobilizing voters on the left. His largest donation this year has been $5 million to Win Justice, a voter-mobilization group focused on minorities, women and young voters in Florida, Michigan and Nevada.

He has also continued to invest in district attorney races, saying prosecutors are "the linchpin of the judicial system" and key to his effort to reduce prison sentences. He sent $1.45 million to a group that supported civil rights attorney Larry Krasner in his successful race for Philadelphia district attorney last year. A spokesman said Krasner had never met Soros or anyone in his organization.

Soros' recent efforts in California were not so successful. Three of his candidates for district attorney in California lost their primaries, and a fourth faces a runoff.

His financial support became a political issue in some of the campaigns. Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert, who defeated her challenger Tuesday, claimed that the city was "under attack" from the billionaire, "who has brought his war against law enforcement" to Sacramento.

The breadth of Soros' spending has made him a frequent target of critics on the right, who suggest he is secretly backing movements that appear to be driven by the grass roots.

Former congressman Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican who is a CNN commentator, suggested on Twitter in February that Soros and other activists, rather than students, were behind a protest in the wake of a Florida high school shooting in which a gunman killed 17 people.

A spokesman said Soros had no involvement with the protest.

Kingston said in an interview that he was merely raising the question of whether Soros was involved.

"Some names invoke an emotional outcry from the red-meat crowds, and certainly he is one of them on the right," Kingston said. "The left has theirs. He does get that sort of sinister, that is, that kind of myth about him, that he plays in the shadows. Maybe that's wrong."

Last month, Soros' name went viral again when Barr tweeted that he is "a nazi who turned in his fellow Jews to be murdered in German concentration camps & stole their wealth."

Among those who retweeted her was the president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.

Soros, who said he used false papers at age 13 to survive the Nazi occupation of Hungary, calls such claims "a total fabrication," adding that they "annoy me greatly."

But he is not fazed, he said.

"I'm proud of my enemies," Soros said. "When I look at the enemies I have all over the world, I must be doing something right."

The Washington Post's Alice Crites and David Weigel contributed to this report.

Europe

George Soros

Russia

Elections

Donald Trump

Republican Party

[emblem-333]

What-If Richard Nixon won the election of 1960?

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic Ocean, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbin is the last thing standing in the way of total economic collapse of the government. Corbin is their Bernie Sanders, only with more political clout given the parliamentary system. Through years of effective party building, mobilizing and a decaying growth of income inequality worked to provide the Labour Party a large chunk of the seats, though not a majority. Though in the minority the gains of the Labour Party causes massive upheaval in Britain’s power structure. Conservative party leader Theresa May recently left office in disgrace after numerous electoral shortcomings. Right now the Prime Minister of the U.K is Boris Johnson. Basically, he’s mini-Trump. More disheveled, and aligned with the corporate class.

Elsewhere, the French did what the United States electorate couldn’t and bite the bullet and vote for the establishment Neoliberal shill in the face of the rising tide of fascism. Perhaps it was the debacle the Trump presidency only in its infancy managed to cause scared the French into running into the arms of Emmanuel Macron. You’d hope this brush with disaster would humble the centrist in the country. Except, in victory they’re only emboldened that only they know what needs to be done and the filthy unwashed peasants need to understand that. Macron shown hostility towards the Yellow Vest movement whose aims are to raise the poultry minimum wage, in U.S dollars roughly translates to 11.62. Far better than our federal minimum wage of $7.25. But hardly something that can be described as a livable wage.

Macron sits at 70 percent disapproval and his re-election date is 2022.

These three countries have come to the unanimous conclusion that is Neoliberalism is completely useless and only works to facilitate a totalitarian ruler to wrangle enough power to squeeze into power and bring us closer to the apocalypse. However, neither country is truly democratic. So the people, their ideals and concerns don’t matter in the slightest. Though, I’d say the United States is the least democratic of of the three. Two of the last six presidential elections have given us a winner who did not secure the plurality of the popular vote, but their superiority in the electoral college swung them to the Oval Office.

We are still in the early stages of our primary for the out of power party. Democrats are weeding out the competitive field and have three choices apparently to pick from. The candidate of the Hillary Clinton-wing of the Party, made up of aspiring Pod Save America Bros. former vice-president Joe Biden. To his way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way left is elder statesman, self described Democratic-Socialist Bernie Sanders. He is the only candidate marching with labor unions, not crossing the picket line to hold fundraiser with the party’s bigwigs. Somewhere in the middle blowing aimlessly in the wind is Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren. A real Rockefeller Republican. If only that wing of the Republicans didn’t collapse and migrate to the Democrats.

Back when Democrats were the party of the working man (you know, the alliance that allowed them to occupy the White House for all but eight-years between 1933 and 1969) in the middle o the Great Depression recently elected president FDR inherited a country on the brink of succumbing to the same forces that destroyed the Czardom. Luckily for them, the Bolshevik Revolution did anything but wet starving Americans appetites for socialism. The ugliness of the Russian Revolution, and a tinge of antisemitism kept what many in the establishment considered the electorates darkest impulses at bay. The New Deal was designed to prevent a movement similar to Eugene V. Debs from upending the established hierarchy.

In the 1932 election there were four far left candidates. William Z. Foster of the Communist Party, Norman Thomas of the Socialist, Verne L. Reynolds of Socialist Labor, and militant labor leader Jacob Coxey of Farmer-Labor. Together the four pooled 1,029,661 votes, enough for 2.6 percent of the vote share. In Debs’ best showing in his many campaigns for the presidency was 913,693 in the election of 1920.

Suffering Americans wanted the blood of the Wall Street tycoons responsible for the demise of their lives. The wolves were at the gates and Roosevelt went to work to ensure his head wouldn’t be on a pike. The New Deal gave the populist its needed relief and the left wing third parties withered away as the dire situation grew less gruesome. Democrats dominated the White House winning five consecutive elections. Conservatives in the party brought up in the era of States’ Rights and limited government radically had to alter their persona to ensure political survival. Harry S. Truman needed to mend his relationship between the AFL-CIO in order to win re-election in ‘48. Texas senator Lyndon Johnson built upon the New Deal instituting a “War on Poverty” birthing his “Great Society.” This aggressive pro-worker party that was a force at the ballot box brought the rise of the liberal republicans in the GOP. Laissez-faire Republicans like Robert A. Taft, Alf Landon, and Wendell Willkie could only push so far in an age where the voter couldn’t stomach the rich. From 1944 to 1960 the “eastern establishment” wing of the GOP ran on platforms which assured voters worried about giving the reins back to the party of Herbert Hoover their intentions are not to gut the popular social programs such as social security, though they wished government interference would not venture farther than it already had.

Moderates like New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, and the first presidential attempt of Richard Nixon failed to win the White House. Their only victory was famous war General Dwight Eisenhower, who could’ve ran as the nominee as any party and won by the substantial margin he did in ‘52 and ‘56. The party designed to appeal on the coasts couldn’t muster up the coalition in the Midwest needed to secure victory. Ultimately, Republicans learned the lesson today’s Democrats never will. Running as the lite-beer version of your opponent is a recipe for failure. In 1968, Nixon unleashed his Southern Strategy when the Democrats cast their lot in with the civil rights movement. The effects of the southern strategy are still felt today. The strategy itself still works over fifty-years after its inception.

But back in the early 1960’s neither party truly knew where they stood on the issue of civil rights. Dwight Eisenhower deployed federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to ensure the entry and safety of black students during integration. His opponent, Adlai Stevenson, a great man, a forward thinker, picked a Alabaman segregationist for his V.P. While the Democrats had its fair share of activist on their team, Hubert Humphrey to name one, who fought tooth and nail for a civil rights plank to be enacted into the party’s platform for 1948. But by the 1950’s the segregationist have regained control.

Perhaps the liberal republicans could have had more success if they exercised political fortitude in advocating and legislating in favor of civil rights. Rather than seeing leaders like Martin Luther King as a controversial figure, at the very least they could have viewed him as somebody who could get them more votes and be heralded as a hero in the process. The infamous “turnip session” in the heat of the ‘48 campaign incumbent underdog Truman addresses the Congress held predominantly by republicans he dared them to put their money where their mouths were regarding civil rights. Of course, they balked and lost the White House they were supposed to win and both the House and Senate.

Playing as Nixon on the Internet game “Campaign Trail” I tapped New Yorker Nelson Rockefeller to be my veep rather than tread water with actual running mate Henry Cabot Lodge. Other options are Arizona senator staunch Neocon Barry Goldwater, and moderate elder statesman Everett Dirksen of Illinois. I choose Rockefeller because I wanted to run on a civil rights platform. I condemned the arrest of of MLK, endorsed a federal minimum wage of $1.25 and didn’t distance myself when Rockefeller promised further civil rights legislation while on the campaign trail.

Though Rockefeller was the rising star of the party at the time, his efforts did not give me the crucial state of New York. However, I fortunately did not need it to secure victory. (I’ll post my answers at the bottom)

Richard Nixon/Nelson Rockefeller: 299; 32,825,498

John F. Kennedy /Lyndon B. Johnson: 224; 33,806,388

Harry Byrd/Strom Thurmond: 14; 328,017

[Post Game Speech] With luck, you will be able to duplicate the eight years of peace and prosperity under Eisenhower. Unfortunately, the Democrats maintain their majority in both houses of Congress. With luck, they will be good partners in a bipartisan governing coalition. Your first order of business is to mend fences with Lyndon Johnson, who is returning to his role as Senate Majority Leader.

I swept the northeast and cleaned up in the west and by the skin of my teeth, despite losing the popular vote changed the trajectory of U.S history. Butterflying JFK from the Oval Office basically ensures Robert Kennedy’s effect on the political landscape as well. People often forget right around this era both parties took orders from the mob thanks to their heavy influence in organized labor. In 1952, the voters of the Democrats eyed Estes Kefauver. Kefauver won 12 primary contests and made his political bones unearthing the dirty secrets of his own party’s ties to the mafia. He was shut out of the convention and didn’t sniff the presidential ticket. Nixon complains of ballot stuffing in crucial swing like Illinois. Only reason he never brought it to court is because his party was guilty of doing the same thing.

Without a president John, we don’t get senator Bobby prosecuting scumbag apes like Carlos Marcello. They could continue to exercise extreme influence over the parties today.

The trade off is maybe a Republican comes along and flushes the monsters out of the Democratic Party. It have to be Nixon. Anyone else is a far reach. Then again, this column is attempting to articulate Nixon, of all people, championing civil rights. So perhaps nothing is impossible?

A plus in not having JFK in the Oval Office is he isn’t around to bungle the Bay of Pigs and take us to the brink of nuclear annihilation in the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis. Young John was inexperienced and couldn’t beat back the bloodthirsty members in his cabinet advocating for the removal of Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Castro disliked Nixon - I’m not so sure the feeling wasn’t mutual. But Nixon was craftier than JFK when it comes to foreign policy. Kennedy waffled between caving completely to the pressure of Allen Dulles and standing his ground. Kennedy green-lit a half-assed attempt on Castro’s life, did not supply the CIA-sponsored Cuban exiles the support needed to sustain their offensive and their failure drove Castro right into the arms of the Soviet Union and Nikita Khruschev. By October of 1962 the Russians parked missiles 90-miles off the coast of Florida.

Nixon was far from a pacifist. But at the very least, his decisive nature would’ve warranted a legitimate threat to Castro and possibly dethroned him and turned Cuba into a puppet state for the United States. It’s debatable whether that is a good thing or not. I’m going to say it’s the latter. Cuba has tons of numerous human rights atrocities, but they treat their poor better than we do by giving them decent health care coverage.

The fate of Cuba probably isn’t different than the Dominican Republic in the mid-60’s when the U.S overthrew their democratically elected leader for implanting social programs that angered the church and corporate sectors of the country. Either Cuba becomes a fully impoverished country or succumbs to right-wing theocracy like Iran.

On a brighter note, Nixon likely pushes forward on civil rights and with his victory it vindicates the eastern establishment and sets up Rockefeller to be the face of the party. So we are spared Ronald Reagan. Though, the caveat is Rockefeller was an architect of the War on Drugs in the pre-Reagan era. So despite his superior record on civil rights we can still expect an explosion of the prison population for minor offenses for black Americans.

A Nixon victory in ‘60 keeps the GOP the party of Honest Abe. While the Democrats continue on as the White populist party. Maybe George Wallace gets a crack at the White House in ‘64 and he is the sacrificial lamb for the future trajectory of the party like Goldwater was in OTL for the Republicans. No more coastal or big city elites for the Democrats. They likely run southern gentleman like Wallace or Johnson from here on out.

Kennedy appointed two Supreme Court justices to the bench. It is likely Nixon nominates Warren E. Burger and maybe Thurgood Marshall to the bench. The difference this makes is Nixon probably never runs into Lewis Powell. The justice who would crusade in favor of big money contaminating our elections. If so, our political system is held hostage by the mob, but not by multinational corporations destroying the earth to make a profit.

[hellofastestnewsfan]

It felt like the country held its breath over four long days, anxiously awaiting one of the presidential candidates’ electoral votes to reach 270. On the morning of Nov. 7, the Associated Press finally called Pennsylvania for former Vice President Joe Biden, pushing his total vote count to 284, a divided America poured onto the streets.

Since Election Day, TIME’s photographers have been spread out across the country to capture it all. With limited access to the candidates at events due to pandemic-related precautions, they sought out creative ways to tell the story. In the end, it somehow feels closer to what we all experienced watching the election unfold on our screens — like Tony Luong’s photos of his dinner sitting before the TV in his hotel room. They saw the anxious faces over the long counting of absentee ballots in an election that saw the highest voter turnout in history.

On Saturday afternoon, jubilant celebrations sprang up in New York, Washington, D.C., Minneapolis and California and went on into the night. That evening, crowds gathered around at the Chase Center in Wilmington, Del., to cheer and see President-Elect Joe Biden and Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris address the nation after their victory for the first time.

At the same time, since Election Day, President Donald Trump’s lawyers have been contesting the totals in many states in a series of lawsuits that have gained little traction so far. In states like Florida and Arizona, our image-makers documented protests making convoluted arguments over the tabulation process.

Here are their images and first-hand accounts of this historic moment in America.

Lorenzo Meloni—Magnum Photos for TIMEBiden-Harris supporters celebrate their win in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 7.

Malike Sidibe for TIME—Malike SidibeTimes Square in New York City on Nov. 7, after news organizations projected Biden defeated Trump.

Malike Sidibe for TIME—Malike SidibePeople dressed up like President Trump were frequent in celebrations of his defeat, like this one in New York City on Nov. 7.

Peter van Agtmael—Magnum Photos for TIMECelebrations erupted near the White House in Washington, D.C., after Biden was declared the winner of the election.

Lorenzo Meloni—Magnum Photos for TIMEA reveler climbs a traffic light on Black Lives Matter Plaza while celebrating in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 7.

Lorenzo Meloni—Magnum Photos for TIMEConfetti explodes as celebrations erupt in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 7.

Lorenzo Meloni—Magnum Photos for TIMEA “USA IS BACK” sign is displayed near the Washington Monument.

Peter van Agtmael—Magnum Photos for TIMECrowds of people at Black Lives Matter Plaza celebrate the result.

“These are fragments I remember from the long week: The President’s usually defined and controlled expressions dropping for a brief moment into melancholy and unease.

The nearly empty Black Lives Matter Plaza on election night at 4AM, a woman dressed as a clown dancing flamboyantly and taping anti-Trump signs to the asphalt.

The boarded up store-fronts and empty streets in a normally bustling neighborhood near the White House.

A young White House staffer in a small alley at night outside the West Wing, her face catching the light for a split second revealing a tear streaked-face before turning quickly back into the shadow.

The swell of a cheer from a small crowd, followed by a few car honks, then more honking then cheers from every direction, as Joe Biden was announced as President-elect.

I’ve never seen such joy and relief in such numbers in an American city in my life. It also made me think of all the people disconsolate that their beloved president had lost the race.” —Peter van Agtmeal

September Dawn BottomsCelebrations in downtown Los Angeles after former Vice President Joe Biden was named President-elect on Nov. 7.

Michelle Gustafson for TIMEMembers of President-elect Joe Biden’s staff celebrate his victory in Rittenhouse Square Park in Philadelphia on Nov. 7.

Michelle Gustafson for TIMEVance Edwards and his partner Vik Bathula stand for a portrait in the middle of Broad Street while celebrating Biden’s victory on Nov. 7.

Lorenzo Meloni—Magnum Photos for TIMEA man climbs a street lamp on Black Lives Matter Plaza while celebrating the election results.

“I must admit that I don’t know much about the United States. This trip I have chosen to do right now, during one of the most polarizing moments in its history, is precisely to get to know this country better.

One of the things that surprised me was having these big rallies inside airports or in what look like shopping mall parking lots. I tried to return to these places at the end of the great events trying to make sense of it but without finding it.

In Italy or France, such a rally would probably take place in symbolic places like the Piazza del Popolo rather than in sterile places decorated for the occasion.

I found the election system particularly complicated, and am heartened by the fact that the current President is also finding it difficult to understand who won.

Although I am particularly happy to see my American friends and colleagues rejoice in Biden’s victory, as a photographer who has worked for many years in the Middle East, I hope that the United States, democratic or republican, will be more careful with their foreign policies.” —Lorenzo Meloni

Michelle Gustafson for TIMESupporters of President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris await their remarks outside the Chase Center in Wilmington, Del., on Nov. 7.

Michelle Gustafson for TIMEAmira Ferjani, 19, waits for Vice President-elect Kamala Harris and President-elect Joe Biden’s remarks outside the Chase Center.

Michelle Gustafson for TIMEZach Rossetti, 25, holds a Biden flag on top of his car outside the Chase Center. Rossetti traveled from Scranton, Pa., to witness Biden’s speech. “It’s not every day that the President-elect is from your hometown,” he said.

Michelle Gustafson for TIME“Vote” nails are seen on Madison Kopie, 25, as she sits on her car outside the Chase Center.

“I had been sitting in a park in Philadelphia with a friend on Saturday morning, and all of a sudden, people around us started screaming, car horns honking, collective cheering, and a literal church bell ringing. It was a domino effect of people realizing Pennsylvania had been called for Biden.

There had been a cloud of anxiety and tension that was palpable in the city since Tuesday, but once it was announced, it was as if a dam had broken. I remember a band in Rittenhouse Square had been playing, and when the news came out, they started to play “When the Saints Go Marching In.” People were running out of their houses towards Broad Street and City Hall, dancing to someone’s stereo playing “Party in the USA.” The one word I heard the most in Philadelphia and later in Wilmington was “relief.”

In Wilmington, when the fireworks went off at the end of Biden’s speech, looking around at so many varieties of people in; race, gender, and age, all chanting “USA! USA! USA!” together. You could feel this electric unity running through everyone in that crowd.” —Michelle Gustafson

Michelle GustafsonSocks with Biden’s face are seen on Madison Kopie as she sits on her car outside the Chase Center.

Michelle Gustafson for TIMEMia Duran, 6, of Claymont, Del., outside the Chase Center in Wilmington while people wait for President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris to deliver their victory speeches.

© Patience ZalangaDemonstrators march and dance in South Minneapolis on Nov. 7.

Patience Zalanga for TIMEAn Aztec dance group in South Minneapolis on Nov. 7.

John Francis PetersCelebrations for President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in San Diego on Nov. 7.

Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteA protester holding a sign with Christian and QAnon slogans at a pro-Trump rally in Beverly Hills, Calif., on Nov 7.

“Pretty much everyone I’ve spoken to in LA spent the days after the election was in a weird state of limbo, where they were unable to get any work done, or read a book, or concentrate on TV, or even sleep. Election Day simultaneously feels like it was yesterday, and also three months ago. It was difficult for me to put together the captions for these photos just now because everything that’s happened since the election has just sort of melted together into one long anxiety dream.” —Jamie Lee Curtis Taete

Sinna Nasseri for TIMEA group of Trump and Biden supporters made an effort to talk about unity and moving forward at the Maricopa County Elections Office in Phoenix on Nov. 7.

Sinna Nasseri for TIMETrump supporters rally at the Maricopa County Elections Office in Phoenix, Ariz., on Nov. 7

Peter van Agtmael—Magnum Photos for TIMEJoe Biden’s first speech as President-elect is broadcast at a restaurant in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 7.

Ruddy Roye for TIMESupporters of President Trump demonstrate and argue with members of the media and become hostile at the Cuban restaurant La Carreta in Miami on Nov. 7.

“It is here, in the center of a Trump supporters’ rally, that I found myself coming home, with Ruddy Roye in tow, only to be cast out by my community. The crowd last night outside La Carreta on Bird Road first turned on a cameraman for Telemundo before shifting focus toward running us out of the lot. They asked why we’d come here, and Ruddy answered: ‘Because I have always been interested in the eyes of the other.’

Four years ago, it was the eyes of the Democrats we looked into in order to understand how a nation carries on beyond the fervor of a national election. The lessons are in that disappointment. And these eyes in Florida betrayed the same pain we saw then — disenfranchisement, fear for moral values, work, culture and more. The community is raw, visceral and animalistic in its anger.

It’s important to come to know that insidious mistrust that would provoke someone to put hands on people they don’t know, who are just trying to do their jobs. To call through megaphones for the destruction of the ‘communists’ they claimed we were. To call for the truth and transparency Cuba’s dictatorship refused, only to then hunt down anyone there to hear it, using the Cuban flag as the banner under which to drive them out. As a community and as a culture, we have to ask ourselves what we fled for.” —Reported by Rebecca Lee Sanchez

Ruddy Roye for TIMEA supporter of President Trump poses for a photograph in Miami on Nov. 7.

Patience Zalanga for TIMEMembers of The New Black Panther Party make an appearance at George Floyd Square in South Minneapolis on Nov. 7.

Patience Zalanga for TIMETrump supporters protest the outcome of the election in front of the Minnesota Governor’s mansion in St. Paul, Minn., on Nov. 7.

Sinna Nasseri for TIMEWomen pray in the parking lot outside of the Maricopa County Elections Office in Phoenix, Ariz., on Nov. 6.

“Here in Phoenix, Trump supporters have been very vocal since the election, with protests each day and into the late evening. It’s a fascinating melange of the Trump faithful: evangelicals, internet provocateurs, heavily armed militia members and white nationalists. They don’t trust the election results and conspiracy theories fly around like MAGA flags in the wind.

The hard core supporters here don’t seem like they’re going anywhere. They’re distrustful of the legitimacy of the process, and I don’t see them accepting the results.” —Sinna Nasseri

Sinna Nasseri for TIMEA Trump supporter at the Maricopa County Elections Office in Phoenix on Nov. 6.

Peter van Agtmael—Magnum Photos for TIMEAn empty White House Press Briefing Room room after the President delivered remarks on Nov. 5.

Peter van Agtmael—Magnum Photos for TIMEA building’s revolving door, boarded up as a precaution amid potential unrest related to the presidential election, in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 5.

Peter van Agtmael—Magnum Photos for TIMEA “Count the Vote” rally in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 6.

Peter van Agtmael—Magnum Photos for TIMEThe White House grounds on Nov. 6, when the results remained unclear.

Peter van Agtmael—Magnum Photos for TIMEPresident Trump enters the East Room of the White House on Nov. 4 to deliver remarks as results of the election remained unclear.

Peter van Agtmael—Magnum Photos for TIMEA performance artist at Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, D.C., in the early hours of Nov. 4.

Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteA woman at a street party celebrating the projected election loss of County District Attorney Jackie Lacey in Los Angeles on Nov. 4.

Rian Dundon for TIMEPeople watch Black Lives Matter protesters march through a residential area in Portland, Ore., on Election Day.

Rian Dundon for TIMEBlack Lives Matter protesters march through a residential neighborhood in Portland, Ore., on Election Day.

Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteA scene outside the voting station at the Staples Center in Los Angeles on Nov. 3.

Jamie Lee Curtis TaeteA man at a pro-Trump rally in Beverly Hills, Calif., on Nov. 3 wears a shirt printed with an image from 2016 of a woman crying after learning that Hillary Clinton had lost the election.

I saw and felt an overall sense of calm in Wilmington on Election Day, consisting of equal parts of nervousness and confidence. From 7AM to 7PM, I drove all around Wilmington through various neighborhoods, both urban and suburban. Folks were commuting to their jobs, kids playing in their yards, construction workers resuming their projects, and lastly, voters waiting to vote. I saw Biden/Harris signs every few houses or so.I didn’t see any agitators at any polling locations or major gathering areas, nor did I see any rallies or conflicts between Trump and Biden supporters. Still, the one thing I did feel was this sense of anticipation that couldn’t be outwardly expressed within the wait for the results to come in.

One moment that stood out to me was in the evening at the Chase Center, where President-elect Biden held his event. As everyone waited for the first states to begin calling their vote counts, a few Biden supporters began to trickle in hopes of seeing the President-elect speak or even being let in. That was impossible due to the coronavirus and restrictions. I walked along the barricade and noticed this mother and her daughter quietly staring at the massive American flag that hung from the cranes inside the event area. There was something hopeful and incredibly quiet about that, being on one side of the fence gazing at a symbol of freedom and hope. It seemed to sum up the voices of everyone in the country and where it was headed and how we were going to move forward regardless of the outcome. — Tony Luong

Tony Luong for TIMEDinner in a hotel room watching former Vice President Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden on Nov. 3 as election results began to stream in.

from TIME https://ift.tt/3n8Sge5

[expatimes]

Ardern vs Collins: New Zealand is at a crossroads

New Zealand voters go to the polls on Saturday, the culmination of a stuttering electoral campaign disrupted by a fresh outbreak of COVID-19.

A profusion of parties - spread across the ideological spectrum - have presented their vision to constituents. In a world turned upside down, voters have placed a premium on parties that appear best equipped to contain virus spread and limit the accompanying economic damage.

Advance voting suggests that the election may have a sizeable turnout, with 700,000 Kiwis placing votes over the past week. Voters are also casting ballots on whether to legalize cannabis and euthanasia.

The centrist Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, appears on course to win an outright parliamentary majority - the first time a single party would be able to rule since the nation's mixed-member proportional system of representation was brought in a quarter of a century ago.

Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, the party has consistently polled about 50 percent. That is largely due to its exceptional management of the pandemic threat: a humane, health-first approach calibrated towards saving lives while insulating the public from the economic hit associated with lockdown measures.

As such, Ardern has pitched a vote for her second term as a vote for stability.

“These are uncertain times, but we've seen what we can achieve with a strong plan,” she said in the party's first major campaign advertisement, released last month. "So, let's stick together - and let's keep moving."

That five-point plan revolves around retraining Kiwis by providing free apprenticeships in the trades; investment in “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects and upgrades to the health sector; further support for small businesses, via interest-free loans; and leveraging New Zealand's reputation as a relative safe haven to attract investment.

“Together we went hard and early to fight COVID,” says Ardern. "Our plan now is to rebuild the economy even stronger."

The party's first term in power was marked by a series of traumatic incidents: the Christchurch terror attack, the Whakaari / White Island eruption, and the new normal of life amid viral menace.

In each instance, Ardern used her clear communication skills to reassure and unify an oft-divided country; The public has positively to this good-faith brand of politics, which prioritises public wellbeing.

However, in other ways, her government - a coalition with the center-right New Zealand First, with the Green Party providing confidence and supply - has struggled to deliver flagship policies or live up to the policy goals of its 2017 election campaign.

Change has been painfully incremental, as opposed to Ardern's bold promises of “transformation” last election.

From the right, this incrementalism is cast as flagrant incompetence; from the left, as evidence that the party remains committed to the logic of the neoliberal era.

The government Kiwi Boyild real estate development project is a bleeding political wound. Efforts to mitigate the country's unconscionable levels of inequality, particularly child poverty - where, after housing costs, about one in five, or 235,400, children live in relative poverty - have barely scratched the surface.

The nation's castigatory welfare system remains in need of significant reform, yet the government has not acted on the advice of its own Welfare Expert Advisory Group, which last year recommended immediately raising benefits by up to 47 percent.

Its capitulation to NZF's opposition to its promised capital gains tax lends weight to the argument that Ardern is too timid of a leader. With the latest 1 News Colmar Brunton poll putting NZF on just 2 percent, the party and its veteran leader, Winston Peters, would not make it back into parliament.

Ardern has since categorically ruled out implementing that tax at any point in her premiership - even absent NZF's opposition - effectively conceding the argument to the nation's rentier class.

Regardless, her administration has achieved noticeable improvements in the health and education sectors, in which it inherited systems run-down, most recently, by nine years of deliberate neglect by the previous National Party government.

Ardern has promised to build on those improvements, announcing a 1 billion New Zealand dollars ($ 658m) health plan last month. The plan includes a 200 million NZ dollars ($ 132m) funding boost for the country's drug-buying agency, Pharmac, and dental health grants that amount to 176 million NZ dollars ($ 116m) for people on low incomes.

If the public does deliver labor an outright majority, hopefully, Ardern abandons her more cautious, conflict-averse style of politics and further embraces the transformational, big state recovery this pandemic demands.

From the left, the hope is that the center-left Green Party crosses the 5 percent threshold for entering parliament, far from a certainty, and that Labor's polling forces it to form a coalition with the party.

The Greens strong push for legalising cannabis - with the accompanying economic, health and social benefits - is an example of common sense, progressive policymaking.

The only other parties that could force labor to the left - or are offering fresh thinking - are the Maori Party and The Opportunities Party (TOP).

The Maori Party, which is running candidates in the country's seven Maori electorates, has provided a raft of policies focused on addressing the persistent inequalities created by colonialism, particularly across justice, health and housing. It additionally wants to establish a separate Maori parliament and see Maori language and history taught as core subjects in schools.

Regardless, if Ardern continues with the incrementalist approach, her administration, which leverages international recognition for domestic legitimacy, may come to represent yet another failure of the globe's vaunted new breed of liberal democrats.

Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron each, like Ardern, spoke the language of “hope” and “change”. Yet, ultimately, all further entrenched a poisonous status quo.

'A poor wee thing'

In contrast to the government assured management of the pandemic, the main opposition National Party has careened chaotic throughout the crisis.

Its complete meltdown raises serious questions about its ability to cope with the pressures of managing the country at a time of global catastrophe.

From the earliest stages of the crisis, the center-right party played politics, attempting to undermine the government's health-first priorities by criticizing lockdown measures and demanding a lifting of restrictions.

It invented a homeless man in a managed isolation facility, leaked the private medical records of COVID-19 patients to the media, attempted to stir-up racist sentiment towards returning New Zealanders, engaged in conspiracy-baiting, and is on to its third leader in six months.

Unsurprisingly, the party's support has plummeted, and it is now routinely polling in the 30 percent range. In desperation, its caucus has turned to Judith “Crusher” Collins for leadership, after former leader Todd Muller, suffering panic attacks, resigned following 53 disastrous days at the party's helm.

“We're actually better. If you look at our team, our experience, ”said Collins upon being selected party leader in July,“ it's all better than Jacinda Ardern and her team. ”

Yet, the party has not fared noticeably better under Collins, who personifies a toxic current that has long run through New Zealand politics and society; one of casual nastiness and brazen self-interest.

The 61-year-old, six-term MP comes replete with significant political baggage. This ranges from allegations of conflict of interest to passing on private information for use in smear campaigns.

Despite a short-lived attempt to soften Collins's image, the leader has predictably reverted to the attack-style of politics that many New Zealanders find repellent, and which ultimately turns people off politics.

Following the first leaders' debate between Collins and Ardern in September, the National Party leader called Ardern a “poor wee thing”.

This posturing has only gotten worse since.

The party has consistently misrepresented Labor Party policies. Most recently, the MP Alfred Ngaro falsely claimed that Labour planned to decriminalise all drugs, allow full-term abortion, and "abortion based on gender and disability."

At a time when the country grapples with misinformation, Collins has additionally attacked the acclaimed investigative journalist Nicky Hager, in her book, Dirty Politics, she featured prominently.

“He is a dreadful man and what he wrote about me was disgraceful,” Collins told a gathering in Nelson. "He still needs to meet his maker."

It is difficult to determine whether the party's pumping out of bald-faced lies and misinformation is a deliberate strategy or merely reflects engrained party culture. Either way, this approach sows division and can distort public perceptions.

It is a play that right-wing demagogues around the world routinely employ.

One need look no further than the United States and the United Kingdom - Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, respectively - which have failed miserably when confronted with the most severe of reality checks: pandemic.

In terms of the policy, the party is offering nothing new.

Its centrepiece policy of temporary tax cuts appears little more than an attempt to bribe high and middle income earners.

Even worse, the cuts, worth 4.7 billion NZ dollars ($ 3bn), would be drawn from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund: money generated by the Reserve Bank's quantitative easing program, and set aside for a potential future outbreak of COVID- 19.

At a time when minimum wage earners have kept the country running, offering those very same people about 8 NZ dollars ($ 5.2) extra per week - or 560 NZ dollars over 16 months - speaks to the party's skewed priorities; people earning 90,000 NZ dollars would pocket an extra 58 NZ dollars per week.

Other policies appear superfluous.

The party has vowed to establish a new "National" cancer agency. Yet, the country's Cancer Control Agency - headed by a renowned cancer epidemiologist and operational for less than a year - has been well-received by medical practitioners and the public more generally.

Stripping away the spin, the party would likely put pressure on public services, by failing to increase spending to match rising costs. It looks poised to ensure further environmental degradation, promising to repeal regulations aimed at cleaning up waterways polluted by intensive farming and opening-up new off-shore oil and gas exploration.

Regardless, Collins soldiers on, spitting venom and invective - and therefore sucking up media oxygen.

By the beginning of October, she was pandering to the country's evangelical Christians, describing herself as a person of faith who believed in “miracles” while attempting to inflame the urban-rural divide.

And, of course, reaching out to the conspiratorial fringe.

"Why aren't we talking about other deaths like the flu?" she asked right-wing broadcaster, Mike Hosking, who has previously suggested that official calls for people to get COVID-19 tests was a government ploy to spread fear and win reelection.

It has been quite the display.

However, if Labor drops a few percentage points and the Greens fail to poll above 5 percent, there is a chance that Collins could head the next government.

For this, her party would need to increase its vote share to 37 percent and form a coalition with its long-term ally ACT, which is polling at 8 percent according to the latest Colmar Brunton poll.

That latter party is far-right Libertarian and has benefitted massively from National Party voter-bleed over the past six months. Its leader, David Seymour, promulgates a narrative of personal freedom to legitimise - or cover for - a raft of extreme free-market policies.

Its policies raise real alarm bells.

ACT promises to: abolish the Maori seats in parliament, hate speech laws and the Human Rights Commission; relax gun laws; scrap the Zero Carbon Act, which provides that nation's framework for addressing climate change; slash $ 7.6bn NZ dollars of “wasteful spending” a year from public services; reduce tax rates; freeze the minimum wage for three years; reinstate 90 day trials for workers; and cut winter energy payments and benefits while monitoring the spending of certain beneficiaries. And so on and so forth.

A National-ACT government, put another way: austerity.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

#world Read full article: https://expatimes.com/?p=11748&feed_id=9541

[berniesrevolution]

JACOBIN MAGAZINE

The events in Charlottesville have remained in the headlines for the last few weeks for a variety of reasons. Surprise at the audacity of a torch-light procession of neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan sympathizers, and “alt-rightists” in an American city, coupled with the murder of social justice activist Heather Heyer during a counterdemonstration, fueled the initial coverage. President Trump’s abhorrent response to the tragedy and local struggles against Confederate statues kept it alive. And frequently dimwitted debates about the merits of antifa have supplied yet more conversational oxygen.

But it would be a mistake for the American left to see this as a decisive turning point in history, or mistake torch-wielding fascists for a mass force. On the contrary: getting consumed by debates about supporting antifa in its street clashes with neo-Nazis misses the larger political landscape.

The post-Charlottesville moment does demand antiracist mobilizations, and it’s heartening that left organizations have sprung into action and seen their numbers swell. Standing up to the far right — particularly when done effectively and en masse, like in Boston — can energize people who are otherwise frustrated and disenchanted because of the Trump administration. But that needs to be linked to tangible political organizing that goes beyond the defensive or symbolic.

Discussions about antifa are also important. Interviews with counter-protestors on the ground in Charlottesville made it clear they were more than happy antifa was there to help. In fact, Cornel West credited them with saving his life.

But the debate over antifa cannot be at the center of left political discussion. I am less concerned about being murdered by a neo-Nazi than I am about the lack of access to quality health care. I am more exercised about the suppression of voting rights and the damage it does to democracy in the here and now than the damage simply represented by Confederate statues. This is not to dismiss the efforts to tear down Confederate statutes. What lies in the public commons, after all, needs to represent the kind of country we want the United States to be. But we shouldn’t allow the conflagration to cloud our vision.

In short, the lessons post-Charlottesville are the lessons we should have learned earlier this year. We cannot simply react to Trump or the “alt-right.” Being proactive, advancing a clear program that can mobilize and galvanize a huge swath of the public — this must be the hallmark of the American left. Otherwise, the genuine anger directed at Trump and the GOP will be wasted. And we’ll squander our chance to build the kind of broad-based left that, in the end, is the best bulwark against the far right.

The Politics We Need

Most of the planks of the left platform we need are already out there, waiting to be used to spur genuine debate and action across American society. Two in particular should top any left agenda.

The first is universal health care: Medicare for All. The Republicans’ haphazard bid to scrap the Affordable Care Act showed that even an extremely flawed version of “universal” coverage was still popular enough to scuttle repeal attempts. Now, according to recent polling, public support for single-payer is on the rise. Even centrist Democrats like Kamala Harris are getting on board. After decades of struggle, universal health care is, if not right around the corner, at least on the near horizon.

Crucially, the demand for Medicare for All also offers a means to build the bonds of solidarity. As Atlantic writer Vann R. Newkirk recently pointed out, Martin Luther King Jr and other civil rights activists saw universal health care as a critical component of their struggle for a just and equitable society. The same is true today. Across movements — whether for black lives or a fifteen-dollar minimum wage or immigrant rights — universal health care is a demand that unifies.

There’s another reason to prioritize the push for universal health care. Far-right organizations like the Traditionalist Workers Party have begun making overtures to poor whites in places like Appalachia by talking about jobs and access to quality health care. 

We can’t allow a pitch for decent health care, or an argument for good jobs, to be used as a gateway to fascism.

Universal voting rights should be the second demand of any immediate left platform. Our political and economic system can’t be changed, radically and in the long-term, through voting. But countless people are being hurt by the system as it exists today, and substantially boosting voter turnout is a prerequisite for winning the reforms that will improve their lives in the short term.

Conservatives understand the importance of voting rights. In recent years, numerous GOP-controlled states have passed laws restricting the franchise, whether through ID requirements or shorter windows for voter registration. They know a smaller, demoralized voting base makes it harder to get left candidates into office.

In the past, the Populist era of the 1890s came to a crashing halt in part because of Jim Crow laws and new state constitutions across the South that severely limited voting rights for African Americans (and many poor whites as well). On the flip side, the rise of a strong voting base in the urbanized North, which included union members and African Americans, propelled the New Deal forward and gave social democracy in America some of its earliest and most important victories — despite opposition from both conservative Republicans and Southern Democrats.

More recently, results at the local level have testified to the enduring power of a mobilized electorate. Victories by Chokwe Lumumba in Jackson, Mississippi’s mayoral race and khalid kamau in South Fulton, Georgia’s city council election were made possible by left-wing political activism on the ground. That these victories occurred in the Deep South and with heavy political participation from African Americans also belies common perceptions about what the Left looks like and where it can compete.

Both Lumumba and kamau met people where they were at, while also sketching out an expansive vision. Which brings me to another important part of the Left’s post-Charlottesville toolbox: political education.

(Continue Reading)

[eichy815]

In The Hick of Time

It had to happen, sooner or later.

(No, wait...actually, it didn’t.  But try telling that to the Democratic Party’s power brokers who seem to think they know everything there is to know about “electability” and candidate popularity...)

Almost immediately upon exiting the Democratic presidential primaries last week, former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate nomination to challenge incumbent Cory Gardner next year.  Strategists, pundits, and Democratic insiders had been alternately begging and goading him into abandoning his presidential bid in favor of a senatorial run for months. So it comes as no surprise that he eventually caved in.

One problem: Hickenlooper’s entry into the race may, in a roundabout way, complicate the battle for the U.S. Senate.

Let’s back up and look at the circumstance and sentiments surrounding John Hickenlooper’s long-shot presidential aspirations.  From 2010 to 2018, Hickenlooper was an uninspiring Center/Left governor of a state that is becoming increasingly progressive in its politics.  He has been widely criticized for his support of hydraulic fracking and his opposition to cannabis legalization.  In this past campaign season, he seemed to spend a bulk of his energy railing against “socialism” (specifically directing his ire at Bernie Sanders).

However, much like Joe Lieberman’s ill-fated 2004 presidential bid, Hickenlooper’s quest for the White House never really took off.  Part of this could be attributed to his overall blandness, in addition to his inability to present a campaign platform that set him apart from the more popular moderate white male candidates such as Joe Biden, Beto O’Rourke, and Pete Buttigieg.

But what’s perhaps most damning is how, as early as last spring, Hickenlooper soundly rejected calls for him to make a U.S. Senate run.  In fact, he explicitly stated that he was “not cut out” for the climate of the current Senate chamber.

Now, of course, he is backpedaling.  But those comments would inevitably be used against him in a General Election scenario by Senator Gardner...not to mention by his opponents in Colorado’s June 2020 Democratic senatorial primary. And, at present, he has a plethora of them!

The leading candidates in this senatorial primary, so far, have been former state senator Mike Johnston, former OSCE ambassador Dan Baer, and former state house speaker Andrew Romanoff.  They had been raising the most money and polling the highest, prior to Hickenlooper’s entry into the race.

A “middle-tier roster” of more recently-announced candidates has included state senator Angela Williams, former U.S. Attorney John F. Walsh, former state house majority leader Alice Madden, and former 5th district U.S. House nominee Stephany Rose Spaulding (my personal favorite).  

Rounding out the crowded field has been a swath of largely-unknown contenders:  psychologist Diana Bray, pharmacist Dustin Leitzel, party activist Ellen Burnes, community organizer Lorena Garcia, nonprofit leader Michelle Ferrigno Warren, and scientist Trish Zornio.

Most likely, as we head into the fall and winter, many of these sparsely-funded candidates will drop out – either endorsing other candidates, or remaining neutral during the remainder of this senatorial primary.  Baer, Johnston, Madden, Romanoff, Walsh, and Williams are perhaps the likeliest to stay in the race until June, unwilling to cede the field to “Hick.”

As often happens in election cycles, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) almost instantly threw its weight behind Hickenlooper.  This is undoubtedly due to his statewide name recognition and the assumption that he can raise the most money – and draw more crossover Republicans against Gardner than any of the other potential Democratic nominees could.

More than a bit of Biden-esque presumptuousness, there – but that seems to be their reasoning.

Let me be clear:  if I was a Coloradoan, I’d vote for Hickenlooper over Gardner in a General Election scenario.  The future of the U.S. Senate – and ending Mitch McConnell’s reign of terror – is just too great to do otherwise.  And, if it was an either/or scenario, I’d rather see our country tolerate a Senator Hickenlooper for six years rather than roll the dice that he’d be able to overcome a deer-in-headlights disadvantage that I believe he would have had if he’d had to go up against Trump himself.

But Hickenlooper would hardly be my first choice, if I was a Coloradoan voter participating in the senatorial primary.  I believe he is running solely to save face in the aftermath of his failed presidential aspirations – strong-armed by neoliberal party leaders/insiders, and conceivably promised a cushy lobbyist position from the fossil fuel industry following the completion of his U.S. Senate career (however long it may last).

In addition to receiving Joe Biden’s endorsement, Hickenlooper’s Senate candidacy has even received support from presidential candidates positioned to Biden’s left, such as Kamala Harris and Julian Castro.

“Conventional wisdom” seems to be that, in clearing most of the future field for this U.S. Senate race, Hickenlooper will have an easy path to securing the senatorial nomination next June.

You know what they say about assuming...

Already, six of the seven women in this primary have banded together, calling upon the DSCC to remove its thumb from the scale in terms of an early Hickenlooper coronation.  And even the white men who are running – most prominently Romanoff – have refused to demur to “Hick’s” ambitions, at this point in time.

If Hickenlooper is the senatorial nominee to go up against Gardner, I predict he will solidly defeat the incumbent.  However, I believe a majority of the other viable Democrats who’d already entered this U.S. Senate race would, as well.  This is just shaping up to be a bad year to be an incumbent Republican upticket in a state with Colorado’s demographics and ideological leaning.

Ultimately, unless he dramatically shifts his rhetoric and personal ideology, I predict a future Senator Hickenlooper would end up serving only one term in the U.S. Senate.  By 2026, he will most likely either be so bored with the Senate that he opts against running for reelection to a second term...or, he will piss off progressive voters so badly that a viable Democratic primary opponent would challenge him, from his left flank, in a 2026 senatorial primary.  It could easily be any one of the umpteen candidates who had declared their candidacies for the 2020 senatorial race against Gardner...or it could be another insurgent, such as former state house speaker Crisanta Duran (who is mounting an uphill battle to “primary out” U.S. Congresswoman Diana DeGette in the 1st District).

Now, it’s entirely plausible that Hickenlooper’s entry into this race will indeed clear a majority of the field, cause most donors to flock to him, and impel primary voters to vote for him due to their familiarity with him from his eight years as their Governor.  In that scenario, “Hick” would easily win the Democratic senatorial nomination, and, in all likelihood, defeat Gardner in November 2020 by a solid margin.  In fact, in that scenario, it’s likely that DSCC chair Catherine Cortez-Masto would decide to reduce financial resources and campaign infrastructure in Colorado, and divert it to other tougher U.S. Senate seats – those that are in “redder” territory than Colorado, but still feasibly “flippable” under the right circumstances.  These states could include, but not be limited to, next year’s U.S. Senate contests in Iowa, North Carolina, Kansas, Georgia, and Kentucky.

However, let’s say that Hickenlooper stumbles and falters, when communicating his message and platform to Coloradoans over the course of the next nine months.  Let’s say that one of the other contenders – Romanoff, Johnston, Williams, Baer, or Madden – stays in the race and gives “Hick” a run for his money during the primary.  What if one of those alternatives to Hickenlooper gains significant momentum amongst Colorado progressives?

If Hickenlooper doesn’t scoop up the senatorial nomination as easily and swiftly as his supporters would have us believe, it could drain his own financial resources in addition to those of the one or two insurgents who may end up making this primary much closer than “Hick” could have ever dreamed it would be.

Then, the risk becomes that Democratic donors will have to work overtime propping up Hickenlooper and replenishing his campaign war chest – in the aftermath of a narrow victory that he might pull out against arguably more progressive challengers.

Which of these scenarios comes to pass still remains to be seen.  But this should be a dire warning to establishment Democrats who assumed they were “doing Colorado a favor” by pushing “Hick” to enter this race. 

If the national climate is so volatile that generic Democratic candidates aren’t automatically favored, going into next summer – neoliberal “scale-tipping” on John Hickenlooper’s behalf could cost Democrats control of the U.S. Senate itself...and risk solidifying right-wing control of our federal judiciary for generations.

[zeroboats]

Zero Boats #16: Communists, Terrorists, Pirates, Votes.

There are weeks that go by with a certain rhythm, even in the strangest of situations. This always makes me think of the biography of Victor Serge, how he worries about raising funds to publish pamphlets or has to move house, even while all around him is guns and Stalinist show trials. And then there are days that seem to collect all the strands together and the it turns out that the threads were really fuses.

The past week has seen a culmination in various ways: the Mediterranea rescue mission, on its third expedition into the sea, finally carried out a rescue operation bringing fifty people to Lampedusa. Predictably, the crew – including Luca Casarini, a well-known figure from the Genoa protests twenty years ago – are being investigated for aiding human trafficking and the ship has been seized by the police. This was entirely predictable because the Italian state has been experimenting with judicial methods of criminalising the rescue missions since 2017, and criminalising boat-drivers goes much further back still. This took a significant dictatorial turn around the Diciotti case in August 2018, when (under the populist-racist coalition government) an Italian Coast Guard ship was stalled at port and the rescued migrants refused from landing for nearly 3 weeks.

With perfect timing, the events of the Mediterranea landing – which was pushing to the surface a problem which the coalition government was trying to silence, that is, the humanitarian disaster in Libya, Italy's colonialist role, and the potential for this situation to split the Five Star Movement, thus weakening the ruling coalition itself – was then shoved aside in the media by an outlandish act of terrorism. A black bus driver kidnapped a school bus and locked the children inside, threatening them with a knife. When stopped, he threatened to set fire to the bus with the kids inside. Once they were all out, he did indeed torch the bus, and was then arrested. He said that he was acting in protest against the deaths at sea and that the blocking of the Mediterranea ship was the final straw.  His parents are from Senegal but he was born in France, and after marrying an Italian received Italian citizenship and has spent most of his life here in Italy.

It is extremely difficult not to believe that the kidnapping of the bus was organised in some way – directly or indirectly, through provocation or instigation – by either the Italian secret services, Fascist groups or, as has been a constant of Italian post-war history, a combination of the two. Not only is the timing too perfect, effectively giving the right-wing press a story to distract from the Mediterranea ship, but the act itself makes no sense. The bus driver has never had any political involvement nor indeed does he seem to have ever even discussed politics; his action did not involve any demands nor did those kidnapped have any connection to the political target. Despite having a knife and a concealed gun (not an easy thing to come by...), he committed no physical violence. It certainly does not entirely make sense as a conspiracy either however: till now, the narrative has been of do-gooders/bleeding heart liberals (“buonisti”) perhaps unwittingly allowing terrorists into Italy and wittingly collaborating with human traffickers for financial gain. At the more extreme wings of Italian right-wing thought, the anti-racists are in league with a Jewish conspiracy for financial gain and the substitution of the white race. Yet in none of the right-wing modern myths is the “buonista” also a terrorist. So let us leave it as this: either this was a left-wing protest gone very wrong, or a right-wing conspiracy gone very wrong. Time will tell...

The same pattern quickly developed when the Mediterranea ship, was finally let go a few days ago, albeit with the captain and Casarini under investigation for aiding human trafficking. The release of the boat could have been a real win for the left, a front-page moment as the case to seize the ship crumbled for lack of evidence (or, more precisely, the evidence already all have been collected). But this headline moment was removed by a still more stunning episode: pirates. A rubber boat of African migrants was picked up by a Libyan merchant vessel near the Libyan coast. According to the ship's captain, the rescued migrants violently threatened the crew and even threatened to damage the ship itself if they were brought back to Libya. Instead, the captain changed route, and took them to Malta. This news of the hijacking was immediately tweeted out by Salvini, saving his party the embarrassment of conceding that the autonomists' ship was being allowed to take to the seas once more.

Again, it's really very difficult to know what's true and what's not anymore. This would be the first instance of a hijacking of this kind by rescued migrants, as far as I am aware. Is this a 21st century Amistad, the passengers rebelling against the crew, refusing to be returned to the war and slavery of the Libyan inferno? As with the terrorist bus driver, it's difficult to believe. Perhaps these are new forms of resistance emerging in a situation of desperation, on land and sea. But again things might not be as they seem. Perhaps the piracy claim is simply a plot to smear the migrants themselves, introduced solely to distract from the release of the Mediterranea. Or, to provide a conspiratorial argument that includes no one on land, Fascist, communist or otherwise: perhaps this was the way the captain could ease the shipping company out of having to reply to an insurance claim for delayed freight. Again, time will tell. The EU Elections and the Migrant Question

This might all seem far from the concerns of many of my friends in the UK, dominated by the battle over Brexit. But in truth it is very close to home in many ways. Firstly, the criminalisation of the NGOs is part of Fortress Europe, part of the offensive against freedom of movement and the state's attempt to regain the control of movement. This is not only important as one of the supposed motivations for a left-wing critique of the EU but – far more vitally – is part and parcel of the rightward reaction to the attack-on-two-fronts of 2015 (Middle Eastern migrants pushing from the East, African migrants from the South). The break in the UK Conservative party was exacerbated and brought to the fore by this international right-wing reaction.

Secondly, the attitude of the current populist Italian government has taken this criminalisation and turned it into a hostility to Europe itself. Even if not in relation to the Dublin Accord (where such hostility would be rationally channeled) the 'migrant question' , much like the 'Jewish question' a hundred years ago, is being instrumentalised as a method for mediating intra-European imbalances of capitalist development.

Finally, these actions come in the build up to the European elections. This is something entirely obvious to anyone on the European continent and entirely mysterious to most people in the UK (even with the Brexit date now being pushed to the limit of the elections). The Mediterranea ship is a political project, backed by party politicians of the left. The criminalisation of Luca Casarini – formerly a part of the extra-parliamentary left and till recently a regional organiser for Sinistra Italiana, as well as a candidate with the Tsipras list in 2014 – is not separable from this context.

The Coming Crises?

On a formal level, little has changed within the Italian economic or political situation over the last two years. In terms of immigration policy, the previous government arguably introduced policies that are worse than anything brought in by the current one (the severe reduction in appeal times for asylum cases, the elimination of second appeals, the funding of the Libyan coast guard). They finally brought in the landmark 'Five Star Movement' policy of a citizen's income, which really translates as an expanded income support with the possibility of becoming a form of workfare – and doing nothing to confront the mass problem of irregular, uncontracted work. The Italian economy officially went into recession, while the European Commission battled to get the government to cut spending. The spending added in for the citizen's income meant that the budget went over the limit required by the EU in relation to the bailing out in 2008 (the pay back of which has been postponed time and again). Economic sabre-rattling with the EU continued with the Italian government signing up to a new investment deal with the Chinese Republic, without EU support. There have also been spats with the French state, no doubt partly due to Italy's chosen side in the Libyan civil war (Serraj) now being isolated in Tripoli while Haftar, backed by the French and Egyptian states, has conquered most of the country.

As the European elections near, the left is in complete disarray, presenting 5 or 6 separate lists in Italy alone. But the truth is that the right is little better: despite claims that the rise of right-wing populists could spell the end of Europe, none of these right-wing parties is standing on a sovreignist, anti-EU ticket. Just as the liberals have given in and backed the racist borders, so too the right has had to back down and recognise that power in Europe needs to be won within Europe. The one state which hasn't recognised this is of course the UK and the lack of its MEPs will in the end mean a boost to the European centre-right – although splits on the far-right (not especially more organised than the far-left) mean that they're unlikely to form a dominant coalition anyway. The following month will no doubt see important developments as the European elections near.

[libertariantaoist]

The other day on Twitter someone tweeted me  the news of the latest drone strike in Yemen, with the taunting message: “Congrats,  @JustinRaimondo.” I had to laugh, and bemoan my fate: “I am now to be held responsible for everything the Trump  administration does, especially their failure to go full pacifist!” Of course,  you don’t have to be a pacifist to oppose our drone campaign, in Yemen or elsewhere,  as I do, but the comment and my response underscore a basic flaw in the thinking  of Trump’s anti-interventionist critics.

I have been writing this column for over twenty years, commenting on current  events as they impact the US on the international stage. I’ve watched as this  country fought a series of unnecessary and debilitating wars, exhausting its  resources and sacrificing the lives of its young people in bloody crusades from  Belgrade to Baghdad. I’ve navigated the tides of public opinion, as support  for this suicidal policy waxed and waned, according to the caprices of the moment  and the push and pull of external events. And if I can draw a single important  lesson from all this experience, it is this: the albatross of empire won’t be  easily lifted from our necks.

There are too many interest groups with both  a financial and psychological stake in maintaining the status quo. The worldwide  string of bases, alliances, protectorates, and US-protected corporate enclaves  that make up the architecture of empire are so vast, and so profitable (for  the war profiteers), that the task of dismantling it is the work of generations.

There was a window of opportunity that opened  after the collapse of international communism and the end of the cold war that  might have cut that timeline short. The events of September 11, 2001, put an  end to that bright hope. Just as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor ended the  hope of the biggest antiwar movement in our history – the America  First Committee – that we might stay out of the European war, so 9/11 put  on hold the idea that America could finally put down the sword and “come home”  after the decades-long cold war.

In short, the lesson of the past twenty-plus years is that we must take the  long view. As a corollary to that, anti-interventionists must understand that  ours is a battle of ideas. The enemy is the concept that America must maintain  a hegemonic position on every continent, that we are entrusted with upholding  and defending the “international liberal order,” and that we alone are capable  of carrying out that supposedly sacred task. It is a conceit that arose in the  wake of World War II and it has guided US foreign policy since that time. Both  parties have historically agreed that “politics  stops at the water’s edge,” and, since 1952 – when the America First “isolationist”  wing of the GOP led by Sen. Robert  A. Taft was finally defeated — bipartisan support for our policy of global  intervention has been de rigueur for all major presidential candidates.

That is, until now.

Although we are still in the grip of what I  call the 9/11 Effect, the aftershocks of that seminal event have largely worn  off. A war-weary public, and a visible decline in our economic condition, has  turned the public inward and greatly decreased the War Party’s influence. The  key to maintaining that influence was always in maintaining the political isolation  of the anti-interventionist forces, which were largely confined to the far left  wing of American politics. As long as the neoconservatives dominated the GOP,  and “centrists” maintained control of the Democratic party, the postwar foreign  policy consensus reigned supreme for the simple reason that the American people  were never given a choice. As Garet Garrett, the Cassandra of the Old Right, put  it in 1952:

“Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional,  representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other  hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one will forbid the other, or one will  destroy the other. That we know. Yet never has the choice been put to a vote  in the 2016 election of the people.”

More than half a century after those words were written, it has been  put to a vote, and the winner is someone who is challenging – in a fundamental  way – the very basis of the longstanding internationalist consensus. I’ve detailed  the various  ways in which Trump  has issued  his challenge  in this space, at length, and so I won’t repeat myself here. Suffice to say  that his revival of the “America First” tradition is, in and of itself, a mortal  threat to the War Party, and they recognize the danger he poses to them. That’s  why every faction with an interest in maintaining the Empire – the neocons,  the liberal internationalists, the national security bureaucracy, the CIA, the  cold war Democrats – have pulled out all the stops in their unrelenting assault  on the Trump administration. They know who their enemies are.

That Trump is inconsistent, and an imperfect vessel, hardly needs to be said.  That the danger of war still looms over us is also a fact that none can deny.  Yet all this is irrelevant in the fact of the conceptual victory his winning  the White House represents. Here is a candidate who campaigned against GOP foreign  policy orthodoxy, explicitly rejecting the legacy of the Iraq war and even going  so far as to call  out the Bush administration for lying us into that war. Even if he had been  defeated in the general election, Trump’s triumph in the Republican primary  signaled the end of neoconservatism as a viable political force, at least inside  the GOP. What this means is that the War Party’s monopoly on the foreign policy  positions of both parties is ended: Garrett’s lament is now outdated, because  the voters do have a choice. They can choose between republic and Empire.

Yes, the Trump administration will take many actions that contradict the promise  of their victory: that is already occurring. And we are covering that in these  pages, without regard for partisan considerations: and yet it is necessary to  step back and see the larger picture, looking past the journalistic details  of the day-to-day news cycle. In short, it is necessary to take the long view  and try to see what the ideological victory that was won this past November  augurs for the future.

If we look past Trump and his administration and scout out what the  road ahead looks like, the view is encouraging: the obstacles that loomed large  in the past – the neoconservative hegemony in the GOP, the war hysteria that  dominated the country post-9/11, the public’s largely unquestioning acceptance  of what the “mainstream” media reported – have been swept away. What’s more,  a global rebellion against regnant elites is threatening the status quo. All  the elements that make for the restoration of our old republic are in place,  including a growing mass movement in this country that rejects the old internationalist  dogma.

Ideas rule the world: not politicians, not parties, not range-of-the-moment  fluctuations in public opinion. This isn’t about Trump, the politician, or the  journalistic trivia of the moment: we are engaged in a battle of ideas – and,  slowly but surely, we are winning.

No matter what one thinks of Trump, or his appointees, the election of 2016  is without doubt the biggest victory opponents of empire have enjoyed since  the country turned its back on the interventionism of Woodrow Wilson and enjoyed  a “return  to normalcy” in 1920. The victor that year was Warren Harding, who declared:  “America’s present need is not heroics but healing; not nostrums but normalcy;  not revolution but restoration.” After the posturing Teddy Roosevelt’s aggressive  imperialism and the more studied “idealism” of Woodrow Wilson, America was ready  to return to the foreign policy of the Founders.

This time, after years of constant warfare, and the stunning realization that  our empire has brought us nothing but financial and moral ruin, Americans are  again seeking a return to normalcy – or, as Trump would put it, they want to  “make America great again.” Having gone down the road that Rome once trod, Americans  stand at the abyss of inexorable decline – and they want to turn back.

Yet the road back is by no means an easy one. External events – unpredictable  by their very nature – may intervene once again. After all, the history of mankind  is the record of chance, human caprice, and endless folly. Yet I am optimistic  at this recent turn of events: barring some unforeseen catastrophe, the future  is brighter than it has been for quite some time. The chances are good that  we may yet become a normal country again, as opposed to a bloated empire beset  by external enemies and internal rot. Perhaps not in my lifetime – I’m 65! –  but, if all goes well, at least I’ll have seen the beginning of the end of the  War Party’s bloody reign.

Since I take the long view, that’s good enough for me

[democratsunited-blog]

2020 visions: Democrats eye presidential runs

https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=3474

2020 visions: Democrats eye presidential runs

Democrats groan when you ask them about it. The party is still sifting through the wreckage of the last presidential campaign while trying to win the midterm elections in November. Nearly every competitive primary this year is cast as a replay of the factional battles of 2016: the establishment Hillary Clinton wing versus the progressives galvanized by Bernie Sanders.

But the 2020 presidential race is fast approaching and what happens this year will reverberate into a likely challenge against President Trump. And unless something major happens in the Russia investigation or the incumbent has second thoughts about another term, Republican insiders expect their nominee to be Trump.

The only hypothetical primary challengers on the horizon are Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who has alienated conservatives, and Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who fell out of favor with GOP primary voters in his own state. Both will be out of office next year, as Kasich is term-limited and Flake is retiring. Speculation about a nominee other than Trump is “idle chatter” at this point, a Republican strategist told the Washington Examiner.

Democrats, on the other hand, may have a presidential field large enough to rival the Republicans’ 17-candidate scrum in 2016. Clinton seems unlikely to run after her second straight loss and the diminishment of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, in the #MeToo era. A new generation of party leaders is emerging. And a plethora of senators and governors are expected to at least consider a bid, perhaps including some who aren’t even in office yet.

Many Democratic operatives spoke to the Washington Examiner about the 2020 field on condition on anonymity in order to avoid alienating potential future clients. Nevertheless, their overall mood was optimistic about the talent level of their probable candidates and prospects for unseating the Republicans.

In a January Harvard/Harris poll, no Democratic presidential contender tested received more than 27 percent support. A subsequent SurveyMonkey poll found no one above 22 percent. At this very early stage, the race looks wide-open.

Joe Biden

The candidate at the top of the national surveys is former Vice President Joe Biden. The two-term Barack Obama sidekick is the closest thing to a frontrunner, although it is far from certain that he will actually run.

Democratic insiders believe that the fire in the belly — the presidential ambitions that led to Biden candidacies in 1988 and again 20 years later in 2008 — still burns. Biden considered a third campaign in 2016, but two factors weighed against it.

The first was personal tragedy. Biden was still mourning his son Beau when much of the early planning for a campaign needed to be done and he publicly questioned whether he or his family was ready to go through the rigors of what figured to be a competitive primary.

“Nobody has a right, in my view, to seek that office unless they are willing to give it 110 percent of who they are,” Biden told late-night television host Stephen Colbert in 2015, admitting that he was not yet ready to commit to that kind of effort after losing his son. Yet also around this time, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd described Beau as exhorting his father to run because the “White House should not revert to the Clintons and that the country would be better off with Biden values” — a plea it was later reported the elder Biden leaked himself.

The second major obstacle was the fact that the sitting vice president wasn’t the front-runner to succeed Obama as titular head of the Democratic Party. Clinton, the former secretary of state and runner-up in the 2008 primaries, was in the lead, and Biden was off to a late start competing with her for donors and staff. Rather than have what would have surely been his last campaign end in defeat, he deferred to Clinton.

Since Clinton lost to Trump, Biden has been in demand on the campaign trail. The heir to the establishment mantle, Biden has already notched a win against the Sanders wing of the party with his support of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., over progressive state Sen. Kevin de Leon. Feinstein finished more than 30 points ahead while de Leon barely advanced from California’s nonpartisan “jungle primary” to the general election.

“The Bernie people were pushing Kevin de Leon and he got 11 percent of the vote and barely got into the thing,” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon. “Feinstein had the establishment support, especially Joe Biden. I’ve got to say that turned out pretty well for Biden.”

“I think he’ll run,” said a second strategist working on 2018 campaigns. “I’ll be pretty surprised, and a little disappointed, if he doesn’t.”

The case for Biden is that he can compete with Trump for working-class whites, bringing states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan back to the Democratic fold, without alienating younger and nonwhite voters. Biden has only become a more engaging and sympathetic figure since passing on 2016.

The main arguments against are age — he would be 78 when sworn into office — and a reputation for being “handsy” with women. He has never been accused of anything untoward, but he acquired this image in part based on effusive glad-handling captured on camera. Would a woman complain about his behavior now? Maybe neither matters in a race against Trump, a septuagenarian who has already been accused of sexual harassment, but Biden would have to make it out of the Democratic primary first.

Bernie Sanders

The junior senator from Vermont had never actually run as a Democrat for anything until the 2016 presidential primaries against Clinton, despite being a member of their Senate caucus. He had previously been the nominee of small third parties and was elected to both houses of Congress as an independent.

Sanders has nevertheless left his mark on the party. Liberal primary candidates seek his endorsement and rely on organizations that grew out of his campaign. Even establishment Democrats now tout “Medicare for All” — the socialist lawmaker’s preferred nomenclature for government-run, single-payer healthcare — and a $15 minimum wage, fearing his followers and impressed by his strong showing with independents and millennials.

The perception that Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz favored Clinton over Sanders in the primary process, bolstered by leaked emails, has done lasting damage to the DNC’s fundraising and hurt other party organs’ efforts to shape primary fields this year.

What doomed Sanders’ campaign against Clinton was that he was never able to compete with her among minority voters, who are not numerous in Vermont. Overwhelming black support is one factor that separated Obama from failed progressives such as Sanders and fellow Vermonter Howard Dean.

Appearing in California days before the state’s June 5 primary, Sanders tried to rectify that. He appeared at a rally with Black Lives Matter, as activist Shaun King extolled his involvement in the 1960s civil-rights movement. “Don’t tell me it is irrelevant, it is an origin story,” King said.

Sanders spoke out against the “dysfunctional, destructive” criminal justice system that leads to the mass incarceration of African Americans and other people of color. He said he hadn’t always been familiar with the extent of the problem, but vowed he was “learning fast.” On the same trip, he protested for a $15-an-hour wage for Disney workers in Anaheim.

Yet 2018 has so far been a mixed bag for the Bernie Democrats. Progressive congressional candidate Lara Moser forced a runoff in her Texas district after a clumsy attempt by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to undermine her, but then lost in the second round of voting. Sanders’ former Iowa campaign chair Pete D’Alessandro finished third in a congressional primary of his own.

If Sanders isn’t a perfect kingmaker, there are also questions about whether he can become king without a binary choice between himself and Clinton. His support is slipping in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire, where he won 60 percent of the vote against Clinton but is now running third in some polls. Despite his youthful support base, Sanders will turn 79 before the 2020 general election.

Elizabeth Warren

One candidate who could threaten Sanders’ status as a progressive hero is Warren, D-Mass., who ran on many of the same themes without embracing the socialist label and was a crusader for financial regulations in the dark days of the Great Recession. She has suggested she won’t run, but is up for reelection this year, six years removed from unseating Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., an early Tea Party hero.

In a fundraising appeal to MoveOn.org supporters this month, Warren told progressives that her example was one they could emulate. “I was 62 years old when I decided to run for the U.S. Senate for the first time. I was a professor and policy wonk, who made fighting for middle-class families my life’s work,” she wrote. “My Republican opponent had a 65% approval rating, $10 million in the bank, and Wall Street on speed dial ready to help him win. The only way we had a shot at winning was to build the biggest grassroots campaign in Senate history.” (She also benefited from Obama being at the top of the ticket.)

Warren hasn’t hesitated to pick fights with Trump, even on his home turf of Twitter. The president is “playing a political game” by saying he can pardon himself, she tweeted this month. Trump is practicing “right-wing ideology disguised as health policy” she wrote about new abortion funding restrictions announced by the administration. Trump in turn calls her “Pocahontas,” a less subtle version of the nickname she acquired for claiming Native American heritage while teaching at Harvard: “Fauxcahontas.”

During the heated debate over Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ confirmation, Warren turned a rebuke from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., into a battle cry. “She was warned,” McConnell said after invoking a Senate rule against Warren. “She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.” Now the catchphrase “She persisted” appears on t-shirts.

Warren has been active on the campaign trail this year. She helped her protege Katie Porter, a UC-Irvine professor, advance to the general election for California’s 45th Congressional District, a Democratic pickup opportunity. “Elizabeth Warren really went to bat for her,” Bannon, the Democratic strategist, said.

When Warren opened the year sitting on $12.8 million in cash, which was more than all of her would-be Republican challengers had combined, it naturally raised questions about whether all of the money was for her reelection in Massachusetts. She insists that she is not looking past her Senate seat. Nevertheless, she could persist.

Kamala Harris

Harris is a freshman senator, having just been been elected by California voters in 2016. The former prosecutor has already attracted a national following by grilling Trump nominees and executive branch officials at Senate hearings. She is a 53-year-old African-American woman with a knack for digital fundraising who is already being talked about as a presidential possibility, and is already being compared to Obama.

When Mike Pompeo, currently the secretary of state but then a Republican congressman nominated to become CIA director, appeared before her in committee, she questioned him on climate change and gay marriage. “He probably found her a tougher customer than [North Korean dictator] Kim Jong Un,” joked a Hill Republican.

Harris has deployed her online army on behalf of her fellow Democrats. She has raised $3 million for Democratic senators up for reelection this year. She boosted Democrats in California’s nonpartisan primary this month, helping her party make it to the general election ballot in several contests where that outcome seemed far from certain.

There are two knocks on Harris. One is that she risks losing support at home if she too quickly shifts attention to the national scene. The second is that something from her “tough on crime” days will emerge to contradict her progressive bona fides.

Gavin Newsom

If not Harris, another Californian might make a run for the White House: Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a former San Francisco mayor who is now heavily favored to beat Trump-endorsed Republican John Cox for governor in November. Too soon? Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown both ran for president halfway through their first terms as governor (both also lost).

“He is in a unique position to be, like Jerry Brown, to be a kind of ‘George Wallace’ of the liberal/blue state cause,” said James Taylor, professor of political science at the University of San Francisco, in reference to California’s resistance to Trump-era federal edicts on immigration and other issues. “California is well-positioned to provide national leadership to a fractured Democratic Party after Bernie and Hillary.”

Taylor recalled former California Gov. Gray Davis, who was replaced by Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, as a cautionary tale. “He dreamed of being POTUS more than California governor and took his eye off the state’s major concerns and it rendered his ambitions ‘stillborn’ to use an ancient term,” he said.

Newsom has denied any interest in the presidency.

Eric Holder

If there is anyone who can rival Biden’s connection to Obama, it is the 44th president’s attorney general. Holder and Obama are partnered on an initiative to win back state legislative seats that are crucial to the congressional redistricting process. This project would accomplish two important Democratic goals: it would try to reverse the Obama-era hemorrhaging of Democrats in down-ballot races as well as what supporters view as Republican gerrymandering, improving the Democrats’ chances of holding the House.

Holder, the first African-American attorney general, was a frequent target of Republicans and was once held in contempt of Congress. He has already visited New Hampshire and has made no secret that he is “thinking” about running for president, once telling NBC News that Biden told him not to wait for his decision.

“The president and other members of his administration have tried to use race as a wedge issue to divide the American people, and it is something that I think is reprehensible,” Holder, 67, said in Manchester. He would need a major assist from Obama in raising money and putting together an organization that would rival what some of the other candidates could assemble.

Howard Schultz

If you are going to have a massive presidential field, then you need a billionaire to disrupt it. Republicans had Trump in 2016. Maybe the Democrats will have former Starbucks CEO and executive chairman Howard Schultz.

Schultz was noncommittal about running after stepping down from the coffee giant this month, saying there were other things he could do as a private citizen. But he has been outspoken about political issues and often had to deal with contentious subjects at the helm of Starbucks.

Unfortunately, little of what Schultz has had to say recently sounds like it would fit in with a Democratic Party that is increasingly invested in Medicare for All and universal employment. “Both parties, President Obama, President Bush and now President Trump, both members of Congress, are complicit in their reckless approach to the amount of debt,” he said, warning that a company with such loose spending practices would be approaching “insolvency.”

“I don’t drink coffee,” quipped a Democratic consultant when asked about Schultz.

Cory Booker

The Washington Post described Booker, a senator from New Jersey, as having the “highest upside” of any 2020 Democrat. A solid orator with a reputation for working across party lines, the African American former mayor of Newark has been considered a rising star for years.

“We in this nation have work to do,” Booker said in a recent well-received speech. “Let us march. Let us march to organize. If we go together, we will bring this country forward.” He was dispatched to Alabama to campaign in a special Senate election that resulted in newly minted Democratic Sen. Doug Jones, showing the breadth of his appeal.

“America, marching onward” is not a bad campaign slogan for Democrats in the Trump era. Booker has nevertheless lost some of his bipartisan aura as he has tried to keep up with his fellow Democrats to protect his Left flank.

At the same time, Booker has been pilloried by liberals for taking contributions from pharmaceutical companies — many of which hail from New Jersey — and being too business-friendly in general.

“Well, we put a pause on even receiving contributions from pharma companies because it arouses so much criticism and just stopped taking it,” Booker told NPR last year. He has tried to make up for it by standing up to Trump appointees at televised hearings, with one particularly contentious exchange with Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen about the president’s “shithole country” remarks, accusing her of “amnesia” and being “complicit.”

The question is whether Booker can rev up the base while maintaining some of his pragmatic nice-guy image.

Kirsten Gillibrand

It would be easy for Gillibrand to remain in the shadow of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. But New York’s junior senator has been making waves.

Having been active on women’s issues through her tenure, Gillibrand has become one of the leading #MeToo voices against sexual harassment and assault on Capitol Hill. She was instrumental in getting Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., to resign amid groping allegations as part of a flood of Senate women coming out against him. And she has been part of the liberal reappraisal of Bill Clinton, having said he should have resigned during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Gillibrand has had to endure some liberal backlash on both counts, having taken on powerful Democrats. Pressed by Joy Behar from “The View” on whether Franken was entitled to a hearing on the accusations against him, Gillibrand replied, “He’s not entitled to my silence, Joy.”

The 51-year-old had been pushing legislation to combat sexual assault in the military long before the Harvey Weinstein story shined a spotlight on Hollywood and Washington, D.C. Nonetheless, even some liberals have labeled her a political opportunist and have pointed to more conservative positions she once took on guns and immigration.

Many other Democrats are said to be pondering their 2020 chances: former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, whose winning 2006 campaign was considered a prototype for Obama’s in 2008; former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, whose 2016 bid to become a progressive favorite fizzled after Sanders surged; and former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a top Clinton ally, to name a few.

“Few,” however, is not a word likely to be associated with Democratic presidential candidates in the near future.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments);if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s) (window, document,'script','//connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '224132531296438'); fbq('track', "PageView");

window.fbAsyncInit = function() FB.init(

appId : '190451957673826',

xfbml : true, version : 'v2.9' ); ;

(function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); Read full story here

[melindarowens]

Red-state Democrats stay away from GOP tax bill

With Scott Bland

The following newsletter is an abridged version of Campaign Pro’s Morning Score. For an earlier morning read on exponentially more races — and for a more comprehensive aggregation of the day’s most important campaign news — sign up for Campaign Pro today. (http://www.politicopro.com/proinfo)

Story Continued Below

TAXATION WITHOUT… — “Red-state Democrats stay away from GOP tax bill” by Campaign Pro’s Kevin Robillard: “When Republicans began their push for tax reform earlier this year, they had hopes of wooing multiple Senate Democrats to back their plan: 10 of them faced reelection in states President Trump won, five in states he won by more than 20 points. But those dreams were dashed by the bill’s unpopularity in public polling and the inclusion of measures no Democrat was willing to vote for. None of the Democrats voted for the plan on Friday night. But the GOP still thinks it can make them pay in 2018. … According to a Democrat tracking media buys, Republican groups have spent about $6 million on ads promoting the plan, double the $3 million Democrats have spent attacking it. The state with the most action was Wisconsin. There, the Koch Bros.-backed Freedom Partners Action Fund spent $1.6 million blasting Baldwin for supporting tax increases in the past and not supporting tax reform. Senate Majority PAC responded with its own six-figure buy to defend the Wisconsinite.” Full story.

DAILY ROLL TIDE — “McConnell on Moore: ‘I’m going to let the people of Alabama make the call’” by Robillard: “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Sunday shifted his tone on allowing Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore to serve in the Senate if elected. … ‘I’m going to let the people of Alabama make the call,’ McConnell said on ABC’s ‘This Week.’ He said he thought the Senate Ethics Committee would handle the allegations against Moore if he is elected: ‘The ethics committee will have to consider the matters that have been litigated in the campaign should that particular candidate win.'” Full story.

— A CBS poll released Sunday found Moore leading Jones 49 percent to 43 percent. A Washington Post poll released Saturday, however, showed Jones leading Moore 50 percent to 47 percent.

— “Is Roy Moore winning? Don’t ask the pollsters” by Politico’s Steven Shepard: “The reality? No one really has a clue about where things stand with Alabama voters in the Dec. 12 special election. For all the national attention and the millions of dollars spent to win the seat, there’s relatively little public polling in the contest. Only three public surveys in the average have been conducted since the Thanksgiving holiday, and odds are you’ve never heard of two of the three pollsters.” Full story.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN CONGRESS — Freshman Democrat Ruben Kihuen accused by former campaign staffer, via BuzzFeed’s Kate Nocera and Tarini Parti: “Samantha, whose last name BuzzFeed News is withholding at her request, began working for Rep. Ruben Kihuen early in his campaign to unseat Republican Rep. Cresent Hardy in December 2015 and quit by April 2016. Starting in February of that year, Samantha, who was 25 at the time, said Kihuen, who was then 35 and still competing in the primary race, propositioned her for dates and sex despite her repeated rejections. On two occasions, she says he touched her thighs without consent. … After this story was published, the congressman’s office sent out a new statement adding that he wanted to ‘make it clear that I don’t recall any of the circumstances’ described by Samantha. … DCCC chairman Ben Ray Luján called on Kihuen to resign.” Full story.

— More from POLITICO’s Heather Caygle and Elena Schneider: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer also called on Kihuen to resign. Lucy Flores, a former state legislative colleague and primary rival of Kihuen’s in 2016, said: “Even though he maintained a girlfriend, he was known to be very flirtatious and hands on. I personally witnessed him being grabby with young, attractive women. … I can certainly confirm that was the reputation he maintained [in the state Legislature].” Full story.

— Flores also blistered ex-Sen. Harry Reid and the Culinary Union on Twitter for aiding Kihuen’s rise: “You can thank @SenatorReid and his cronies for making sure the powers including @Culinary226 aligned behind his choice. He’s got a terrible track record of male political mentees, BTW.”

— IN FARENTHOLD’S TX-27 — Potential primary challenger steps forward: “It is a sad day when an elected official uses taxpayer money to settle a claim of sexual harassment,” said Texas Water Development Board Chairman Bech Bruun in a statement, via the Texas Tribune. “I am humbled by the numerous calls I have received today and during the past weeks asking me to run for U.S. Congress to help restore voters’ faith in our national leadership. … I anticipate announcing my intentions next week.” The filing deadline for Texas’ primaries is Dec. 11.

Days until the 2018 election: 336

Thanks for joining us! You can email tips to the Campaign Pro team at sbland@politico.com, eschneider@politico.com, krobillard@politico.com, dstrauss@politico.com and mseverns@politico.com.

You can also follow us on Twitter: @politicoscott, @ec_schneider, @politicokevin, @danielstrauss4 and @maggieseverns.

THE PLAYBOOK POWER LIST: 18 TO WATCH IN 2018: The final Playbook Power List of the year highlights 18 politicians, activists and operatives across the country who are poised to make waves in 2018. From the anti-Trump “Resistance” on the left to the far right Bannonite wing trying to remake the GOP, keep an eye on these people over the next 12 months. Click HERE to find out who made the list.

LEADERSHIP CHANGE — Washington Gov. Jay Inslee is poised to take over the chairmanship of the Democratic Governors Association today. Here’s a DGA video hailing the beginning of Inslee’s chairmanship.

GO SOUTHWEST — “Latino Victory Fund endorses in Southwest governor races” by Robillard: “Latino Victory Fund is backing Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico and David Garcia of Arizona in its first gubernatorial endorsements of the cycle. … Garcia and Grisham are the two most prominent Latino candidates for governor in 2018. Garcia is competing with state Sen. Steve Farley for the Democratic nomination to challenge GOP Gov. Doug Ducey. Grisham is competing with state Sen. Joe Cervantes and businessman Jeff Apodaca, the son of former Gov. Jerry Apodaca. GOP Gov. Susana Martinez is term-limited. If Grisham wins, she would become the first Democratic Latina governor in the history of the United States.” Full story. <<

LEVIN RETIREMENT — “U.S. Rep. Sander Levin will retire from Congress when term ends next year” by The Detroit Free Press’s Kathleen Gray: “After 35 years in Congress, U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin, D-Royal Oak, has decided it’s time for a different adventure. The 86-year-old Democrat will not run for reelection in 2018, but will instead join the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, where he will continue to work on issues that have engrossed him in Congress, such as health care and trade issues. … Levin is leaving after three decades of doing everything from fighting to make sure Social Security isn’t privatized to securing a bailout for the domestic auto industry and overseeing the passage of the Affordable Care Act as the chairman of the powerful tax-writing Ways and Means committee.” Full story.

12-DIMENSIONAL CHESS — “Trump moves to block Romney from the Senate” by POLITICO’s Alex Isenstadt: “Donald Trump is going all out to persuade seven-term Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch to seek reelection — a push aimed in no small part at keeping the president’s longtime nemesis, Mitt Romney, out of the Senate. … Trump is slated to ride [to Utah today] with Hatch both ways on Air Force One — a total of roughly nine hours round-trip. After descending from the plane together, the two will meet with Mormon leaders and then head to the state capitol for the signing of the executive order, according to three White House officials. Hatch will introduce Trump, who in turn is expected to lavish praise on the senator. After the order is signed, Hatch is expected to receive the president’s pen.” Full story.

— “Steve Bannon mulls Orrin Hatch endorsement to block Mitt Romney” by The Washington Examiner’s David Drucker: “Steve Bannon is mulling an endorsement of Sen. Orrin Hatch in his bid to keep Mitt Romney out of the Senate, a source close to President Trump’s former chief strategist confirmed on Sunday. Bannon is targeting Republican incumbents in 2018 primaries to undermine support for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Hatch, a McConnell loyalist and a fixture of Washington and the Republican establishment for more than 40 years, is not Bannon’s ideal choice. … “If Steve had a choice between Orrin Hatch and Mitt Romney, he would pick Hatch 10 times out of 10,” the source close to Bannon told the Washington Examiner.” Full story.

STAFFING UP — “Former White House southeast political director running Tennessee Senate campaign” by Campaign Pro’s Daniel Strauss and Daniel Lippman: “Thomas Midanek, formerly the White House southeast regional political director, has left the Trump administration and joined former Tennessee Rep. Stephen Fincher’s Senate campaign as campaign manager. A source familiar with Midanek’s thinking said he left the White House because he ‘wanted to get back into the campaign world.’ Midanek confirmed the new job but declined to comment further. … Fincher is one of a handful of Republicans running in the Tennessee Republican primary for Sen. Bob Corker‘s Senate seat. His most high profile opponent in the primary is Rep. Marsha Blackburn.” Full story.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “And we’ll swear in whoever’s elected and see where we are at that particular point.” — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell during an interview on “Face the Nation” on Sunday responding to a question about what to do about Roy Moore.

Source link

source https://capitalisthq.com/red-state-democrats-stay-away-from-gop-tax-bill/ from CapitalistHQ http://capitalisthq.blogspot.com/2017/12/red-state-democrats-stay-away-from-gop.html

[everettwilkinson]

Red-state Democrats stay away from GOP tax bill

With Scott Bland

The following newsletter is an abridged version of Campaign Pro’s Morning Score. For an earlier morning read on exponentially more races — and for a more comprehensive aggregation of the day’s most important campaign news — sign up for Campaign Pro today. (http://www.politicopro.com/proinfo)

Story Continued Below

TAXATION WITHOUT… — “Red-state Democrats stay away from GOP tax bill” by Campaign Pro’s Kevin Robillard: “When Republicans began their push for tax reform earlier this year, they had hopes of wooing multiple Senate Democrats to back their plan: 10 of them faced reelection in states President Trump won, five in states he won by more than 20 points. But those dreams were dashed by the bill’s unpopularity in public polling and the inclusion of measures no Democrat was willing to vote for. None of the Democrats voted for the plan on Friday night. But the GOP still thinks it can make them pay in 2018. … According to a Democrat tracking media buys, Republican groups have spent about $6 million on ads promoting the plan, double the $3 million Democrats have spent attacking it. The state with the most action was Wisconsin. There, the Koch Bros.-backed Freedom Partners Action Fund spent $1.6 million blasting Baldwin for supporting tax increases in the past and not supporting tax reform. Senate Majority PAC responded with its own six-figure buy to defend the Wisconsinite.” Full story.

DAILY ROLL TIDE — “McConnell on Moore: ‘I’m going to let the people of Alabama make the call’” by Robillard: “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Sunday shifted his tone on allowing Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore to serve in the Senate if elected. … ‘I’m going to let the people of Alabama make the call,’ McConnell said on ABC’s ‘This Week.’ He said he thought the Senate Ethics Committee would handle the allegations against Moore if he is elected: ‘The ethics committee will have to consider the matters that have been litigated in the campaign should that particular candidate win.'” Full story.

— A CBS poll released Sunday found Moore leading Jones 49 percent to 43 percent. A Washington Post poll released Saturday, however, showed Jones leading Moore 50 percent to 47 percent.

— “Is Roy Moore winning? Don’t ask the pollsters” by Politico’s Steven Shepard: “The reality? No one really has a clue about where things stand with Alabama voters in the Dec. 12 special election. For all the national attention and the millions of dollars spent to win the seat, there’s relatively little public polling in the contest. Only three public surveys in the average have been conducted since the Thanksgiving holiday, and odds are you’ve never heard of two of the three pollsters.” Full story.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN CONGRESS — Freshman Democrat Ruben Kihuen accused by former campaign staffer, via BuzzFeed’s Kate Nocera and Tarini Parti: “Samantha, whose last name BuzzFeed News is withholding at her request, began working for Rep. Ruben Kihuen early in his campaign to unseat Republican Rep. Cresent Hardy in December 2015 and quit by April 2016. Starting in February of that year, Samantha, who was 25 at the time, said Kihuen, who was then 35 and still competing in the primary race, propositioned her for dates and sex despite her repeated rejections. On two occasions, she says he touched her thighs without consent. … After this story was published, the congressman’s office sent out a new statement adding that he wanted to ‘make it clear that I don’t recall any of the circumstances’ described by Samantha. … DCCC chairman Ben Ray Luján called on Kihuen to resign.” Full story.

— More from POLITICO’s Heather Caygle and Elena Schneider: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer also called on Kihuen to resign. Lucy Flores, a former state legislative colleague and primary rival of Kihuen’s in 2016, said: “Even though he maintained a girlfriend, he was known to be very flirtatious and hands on. I personally witnessed him being grabby with young, attractive women. … I can certainly confirm that was the reputation he maintained [in the state Legislature].” Full story.

— Flores also blistered ex-Sen. Harry Reid and the Culinary Union on Twitter for aiding Kihuen’s rise: “You can thank @SenatorReid and his cronies for making sure the powers including @Culinary226 aligned behind his choice. He’s got a terrible track record of male political mentees, BTW.”

— IN FARENTHOLD’S TX-27 — Potential primary challenger steps forward: “It is a sad day when an elected official uses taxpayer money to settle a claim of sexual harassment,” said Texas Water Development Board Chairman Bech Bruun in a statement, via the Texas Tribune. “I am humbled by the numerous calls I have received today and during the past weeks asking me to run for U.S. Congress to help restore voters’ faith in our national leadership. … I anticipate announcing my intentions next week.” The filing deadline for Texas’ primaries is Dec. 11.

Days until the 2018 election: 336

Thanks for joining us! You can email tips to the Campaign Pro team at sbland@politico.com, eschneider@politico.com, krobillard@politico.com, dstrauss@politico.com and mseverns@politico.com.

You can also follow us on Twitter: @politicoscott, @ec_schneider, @politicokevin, @danielstrauss4 and @maggieseverns.

THE PLAYBOOK POWER LIST: 18 TO WATCH IN 2018: The final Playbook Power List of the year highlights 18 politicians, activists and operatives across the country who are poised to make waves in 2018. From the anti-Trump “Resistance” on the left to the far right Bannonite wing trying to remake the GOP, keep an eye on these people over the next 12 months. Click HERE to find out who made the list.

LEADERSHIP CHANGE — Washington Gov. Jay Inslee is poised to take over the chairmanship of the Democratic Governors Association today. Here’s a DGA video hailing the beginning of Inslee’s chairmanship.

GO SOUTHWEST — “Latino Victory Fund endorses in Southwest governor races” by Robillard: “Latino Victory Fund is backing Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico and David Garcia of Arizona in its first gubernatorial endorsements of the cycle. … Garcia and Grisham are the two most prominent Latino candidates for governor in 2018. Garcia is competing with state Sen. Steve Farley for the Democratic nomination to challenge GOP Gov. Doug Ducey. Grisham is competing with state Sen. Joe Cervantes and businessman Jeff Apodaca, the son of former Gov. Jerry Apodaca. GOP Gov. Susana Martinez is term-limited. If Grisham wins, she would become the first Democratic Latina governor in the history of the United States.” Full story. <<

LEVIN RETIREMENT — “U.S. Rep. Sander Levin will retire from Congress when term ends next year” by The Detroit Free Press’s Kathleen Gray: “After 35 years in Congress, U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin, D-Royal Oak, has decided it’s time for a different adventure. The 86-year-old Democrat will not run for reelection in 2018, but will instead join the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, where he will continue to work on issues that have engrossed him in Congress, such as health care and trade issues. … Levin is leaving after three decades of doing everything from fighting to make sure Social Security isn’t privatized to securing a bailout for the domestic auto industry and overseeing the passage of the Affordable Care Act as the chairman of the powerful tax-writing Ways and Means committee.” Full story.

12-DIMENSIONAL CHESS — “Trump moves to block Romney from the Senate” by POLITICO’s Alex Isenstadt: “Donald Trump is going all out to persuade seven-term Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch to seek reelection — a push aimed in no small part at keeping the president’s longtime nemesis, Mitt Romney, out of the Senate. … Trump is slated to ride [to Utah today] with Hatch both ways on Air Force One — a total of roughly nine hours round-trip. After descending from the plane together, the two will meet with Mormon leaders and then head to the state capitol for the signing of the executive order, according to three White House officials. Hatch will introduce Trump, who in turn is expected to lavish praise on the senator. After the order is signed, Hatch is expected to receive the president’s pen.” Full story.

— “Steve Bannon mulls Orrin Hatch endorsement to block Mitt Romney” by The Washington Examiner’s David Drucker: “Steve Bannon is mulling an endorsement of Sen. Orrin Hatch in his bid to keep Mitt Romney out of the Senate, a source close to President Trump’s former chief strategist confirmed on Sunday. Bannon is targeting Republican incumbents in 2018 primaries to undermine support for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Hatch, a McConnell loyalist and a fixture of Washington and the Republican establishment for more than 40 years, is not Bannon’s ideal choice. … “If Steve had a choice between Orrin Hatch and Mitt Romney, he would pick Hatch 10 times out of 10,” the source close to Bannon told the Washington Examiner.” Full story.

STAFFING UP — “Former White House southeast political director running Tennessee Senate campaign” by Campaign Pro’s Daniel Strauss and Daniel Lippman: “Thomas Midanek, formerly the White House southeast regional political director, has left the Trump administration and joined former Tennessee Rep. Stephen Fincher’s Senate campaign as campaign manager. A source familiar with Midanek’s thinking said he left the White House because he ‘wanted to get back into the campaign world.’ Midanek confirmed the new job but declined to comment further. … Fincher is one of a handful of Republicans running in the Tennessee Republican primary for Sen. Bob Corker‘s Senate seat. His most high profile opponent in the primary is Rep. Marsha Blackburn.” Full story.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “And we’ll swear in whoever’s elected and see where we are at that particular point.” — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell during an interview on “Face the Nation” on Sunday responding to a question about what to do about Roy Moore.

Source link

from CapitalistHQ.com https://capitalisthq.com/red-state-democrats-stay-away-from-gop-tax-bill/