Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
June 11, 2015
What A Smug-Face Weasel.................
Worth a watch....
It was Jeb Bush's first campaign. In 1994, the 41-year-old son of the former president was the Republican nominee challenging Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles. The race was close, with several political handicappers predicting Bush would dethrone Chiles. Then in the final days, Bush released what his campaign considered to be a game-changing ad. The TV spot featured a Florida woman named Wendy Nelson, who happened to be a Bush campaign volunteer. Fourteen years earlier, her 10-year-old daughter had been kidnapped on her way to school and then murdered. Her murderer was apprehended and in 1981 sentenced to die. Yet all these years later, he remained on death row. In the Bush ad, Nelson said, "Her killer is still on death row, and we're still waiting for justice. We won't get it from Lawton Chiles because he's too liberal on crime."
The ad ignited a firestorm. Chiles and his camp decried Bush for brazenly exploiting this horrific crime, noting that a previous governor had signed a death warrant for the murderer (but an appeal was pending) and that on Chiles' watch as many convicted killers had been executed as had been put to death during the stints of previous Republican and Democratic governors (eight or nine a term). Chiles' team also noted that he had moved to expedite the death penalty appeals process.
cont'
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/watch-jeb-bush-defend-campaign-ad-exploited-murder-10-year-old-girl
Watch JEB BUSH Defend a Campaign Ad That EXPLOITED the Murder of a 10-Year-Old Girl
In his first campaign for Florida governor, Bush went Willie Horton on the Democratic incumbent—and it backfired.
What A Smug-Face Weasel.................
Worth a watch....
It was Jeb Bush's first campaign. In 1994, the 41-year-old son of the former president was the Republican nominee challenging Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles. The race was close, with several political handicappers predicting Bush would dethrone Chiles. Then in the final days, Bush released what his campaign considered to be a game-changing ad. The TV spot featured a Florida woman named Wendy Nelson, who happened to be a Bush campaign volunteer. Fourteen years earlier, her 10-year-old daughter had been kidnapped on her way to school and then murdered. Her murderer was apprehended and in 1981 sentenced to die. Yet all these years later, he remained on death row. In the Bush ad, Nelson said, "Her killer is still on death row, and we're still waiting for justice. We won't get it from Lawton Chiles because he's too liberal on crime."
The ad ignited a firestorm. Chiles and his camp decried Bush for brazenly exploiting this horrific crime, noting that a previous governor had signed a death warrant for the murderer (but an appeal was pending) and that on Chiles' watch as many convicted killers had been executed as had been put to death during the stints of previous Republican and Democratic governors (eight or nine a term). Chiles' team also noted that he had moved to expedite the death penalty appeals process.
cont'
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/watch-jeb-bush-defend-campaign-ad-exploited-murder-10-year-old-girl
June 11, 2015
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had already delivered the message to Speaker John Boehner: Democrats could not support Medicare cuts to pay for a job-training program that is critical to pass fast-track trade authority for President Barack Obama. But it was her good friend, Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, who offered the blunt political message to Democratic lawmakers in a closed meeting Wednesday: If you vote to cut Medicare, you could soon find yourself out of a job. With DeLauro at a microphone in the meeting, GOP campaign ads from 2014 flashed on a screen at the front of the room. There were former Arizona Rep. Ron Barber, failed Senate candidate Bruce Braley and others being castigated by GOP opponents for voting to cut Medicare. DeLauro promised she had more such ads before she stopped.
It’s now Pelosi’s time to wade into the fast-track fight. For months, she’s kept her powder dry, allowing Democratic and Republican negotiators to hash out the large-scale agreement without her intimate involvement. And Obama’s White House, Boehner’s leadership team and Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) operation were feeling good about the prospects of passing a fast-track trade bill after months of private meetings, deal cutting and arm twisting. But Pelosi stopped the process in its tracks on the cusp of a planned Friday vote. First, she succeeded in getting Boehner to drop the Medicare cuts from the trade package. Now, Pelosi is forcing the speaker to rewrite carefully crafted rules for how the House will consider the legislation.
Pelosi, who is publicly undecided on the legislation, asked Boehner to amend the job-training Trade Adjustment Assistance bill, instead of making the budget offsets part of another bill. That move would force the Senate to reconsider TAA, potentially bringing Obama’s negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal to a halt. There are other options under consideration later in the day Wednesday — including some complex procedural wrangling — with indications Pelosi and Boehner will find a way out of the bind. Still, it’s not the first time Pelosi has flexed her muscles late in the legislative process. The government funding fight last fall is another example. Her operating principle is simple: If her party is providing votes for TAA, then Democrats should have a say in the policy. The jobs assistance bill will fail without Democratic support, jeopardizing the fast-track vote. Pelosi’s last-minute moves have confounded some Democrats, including a prominent fast-track supporter, Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin. He asked Pelosi in a closed meeting Wednesday: Had she cut a deal with Boehner? A small minority of Democrats whispered she was blowing up a bill she never really liked.
A Pelosi spokesman disputed that characterization and noted that Pelosi was set to meet Wednesday evening with members of the moderate New Democrat Coalition — several members of which plan to back the trade package. Any potential change to Medicare is treacherous politics for either party — and Pelosi is acutely aware of that. Democrats have supported tweaks in the past, however. A permanent fix to Medicare reimbursement rates approved this year changed elements of the program. And some House aides pointed out that nearly 150 Democrats voted for similar trims to Medicare in the budget deal crafted by Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).
The Medicare fix in this bill amounts to roughly $60 million in savings each year — barely a drop in the bucket for a half-trillion-dollar-per-year program. But after DeLauro starting reminding Democrats of the peril they might face, the floodgates opened, and the House Democratic Caucus meeting became a stage for trade dissidents at the most inopportune time for Obama. South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn said if Democrats vote for the Medicare cuts — even if the reductions are reversed — they will be crosswise with their base. If they vote against it, they will embarrass the president. “People at home who want this are my Republicans friends,” Clyburn said, according to a source in the room. “Not the people who keep me here. It’s crazy if they think Democrats are OK to take money away from Medicare.”
cont'
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/nancy-pelosi-flexes-muscle-ahead-of-trade-vote-118851.html?hp=t4_r
Nancy Pelosi FLEXES MUSCLES Ahead Of Trade Vote
Pelosi’s machinations have left many onlookers wondering whether she wants Obama’s legislative priority to pass or whether she’s trying to sink it.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had already delivered the message to Speaker John Boehner: Democrats could not support Medicare cuts to pay for a job-training program that is critical to pass fast-track trade authority for President Barack Obama. But it was her good friend, Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, who offered the blunt political message to Democratic lawmakers in a closed meeting Wednesday: If you vote to cut Medicare, you could soon find yourself out of a job. With DeLauro at a microphone in the meeting, GOP campaign ads from 2014 flashed on a screen at the front of the room. There were former Arizona Rep. Ron Barber, failed Senate candidate Bruce Braley and others being castigated by GOP opponents for voting to cut Medicare. DeLauro promised she had more such ads before she stopped.
It’s now Pelosi’s time to wade into the fast-track fight. For months, she’s kept her powder dry, allowing Democratic and Republican negotiators to hash out the large-scale agreement without her intimate involvement. And Obama’s White House, Boehner’s leadership team and Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) operation were feeling good about the prospects of passing a fast-track trade bill after months of private meetings, deal cutting and arm twisting. But Pelosi stopped the process in its tracks on the cusp of a planned Friday vote. First, she succeeded in getting Boehner to drop the Medicare cuts from the trade package. Now, Pelosi is forcing the speaker to rewrite carefully crafted rules for how the House will consider the legislation.
Pelosi, who is publicly undecided on the legislation, asked Boehner to amend the job-training Trade Adjustment Assistance bill, instead of making the budget offsets part of another bill. That move would force the Senate to reconsider TAA, potentially bringing Obama’s negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal to a halt. There are other options under consideration later in the day Wednesday — including some complex procedural wrangling — with indications Pelosi and Boehner will find a way out of the bind. Still, it’s not the first time Pelosi has flexed her muscles late in the legislative process. The government funding fight last fall is another example. Her operating principle is simple: If her party is providing votes for TAA, then Democrats should have a say in the policy. The jobs assistance bill will fail without Democratic support, jeopardizing the fast-track vote. Pelosi’s last-minute moves have confounded some Democrats, including a prominent fast-track supporter, Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin. He asked Pelosi in a closed meeting Wednesday: Had she cut a deal with Boehner? A small minority of Democrats whispered she was blowing up a bill she never really liked.
A Pelosi spokesman disputed that characterization and noted that Pelosi was set to meet Wednesday evening with members of the moderate New Democrat Coalition — several members of which plan to back the trade package. Any potential change to Medicare is treacherous politics for either party — and Pelosi is acutely aware of that. Democrats have supported tweaks in the past, however. A permanent fix to Medicare reimbursement rates approved this year changed elements of the program. And some House aides pointed out that nearly 150 Democrats voted for similar trims to Medicare in the budget deal crafted by Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).
The Medicare fix in this bill amounts to roughly $60 million in savings each year — barely a drop in the bucket for a half-trillion-dollar-per-year program. But after DeLauro starting reminding Democrats of the peril they might face, the floodgates opened, and the House Democratic Caucus meeting became a stage for trade dissidents at the most inopportune time for Obama. South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn said if Democrats vote for the Medicare cuts — even if the reductions are reversed — they will be crosswise with their base. If they vote against it, they will embarrass the president. “People at home who want this are my Republicans friends,” Clyburn said, according to a source in the room. “Not the people who keep me here. It’s crazy if they think Democrats are OK to take money away from Medicare.”
cont'
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/nancy-pelosi-flexes-muscle-ahead-of-trade-vote-118851.html?hp=t4_r
June 10, 2015
Remember,...this is Ross Perot in 1992...........
I'm not sure how the coming vote on Fast Track and TPP in the House will go. I'm hearing about the possibility of money changing hands on the Republican side (Bob Ney speculated about that in an on-air conversation with Thom Hartmann, and the sums he mentioned were huge). And I'm hearing about extraordinary pressure being put on Democrats by party leaders. So we'll see. Two things I do know. First, if Democrats push Fast Track and TPP over the finish line, it could be a bloodbath at election time. (That's a warning for Republicans as well.) And second, if Democrats push Fast Track and TPP over the finish line, it should be a bloodbath at election time. I will say, speaking for myself only, that every Democrat who votes for Fast Track needs to be made a lobbyist at the first opportunity. Some deeds are so bad, will do such damage, that they should never be rewarded with a return to elected office. If Fast Track passes, then TPP will almost certainly pass, the Trans-Atlantic version, TTIP (or as some call it, TAFTA) will pass, and TISA, the horrible "service sector" agreement will also pass. These agreements will not only remake the world economy, as NAFTA did, but on a much larger scale — they will also neuter the sovereignty of every nation that signs them. Which of your elected representatives would you like to reward after saying yes to that? How about ... none of them? Starting with Ron Wyden, who greased the skids in the Senate, and people like House member Jim Costa (click to help tell him how you feel about his TPP support).
Supporting NAFTA Was the Kiss of Death for Democrats
Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies has taken a look at the NAFTA vote, one very similar to the current Fast Track and TPP vote, in that Democrats were heavily lobbied by their leaders to say yes, despite widespread understanding that NAFTA would be a job-killer. Remember, the NAFTA vote came not long after a presidential campaign in which Ross Perot talked about that "giant sucking sound going south," the sound of jobs moving to Mexico. (Feel free to remind yourself about that moment by watching the short video at the top.) Sarah Anderson, writing on the consequences to Democrats of their NAFTA votes, opens with a bit of context and a question:
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
NAFTA Support Was the KISS OF DEATH For Democrats — Why Dems Should Think Twice About Voting for TPP
"...Ross Perot describes the "giant sucking sound going south." Notice how right he is about all the other evils he describes — how public officials "cash out," for example, or the simple logic of dumping your domestic work force if all you care about is "making money." Notice also that the questioner is a pro–trade agreement shill..."
Remember,...this is Ross Perot in 1992...........
I'm not sure how the coming vote on Fast Track and TPP in the House will go. I'm hearing about the possibility of money changing hands on the Republican side (Bob Ney speculated about that in an on-air conversation with Thom Hartmann, and the sums he mentioned were huge). And I'm hearing about extraordinary pressure being put on Democrats by party leaders. So we'll see. Two things I do know. First, if Democrats push Fast Track and TPP over the finish line, it could be a bloodbath at election time. (That's a warning for Republicans as well.) And second, if Democrats push Fast Track and TPP over the finish line, it should be a bloodbath at election time. I will say, speaking for myself only, that every Democrat who votes for Fast Track needs to be made a lobbyist at the first opportunity. Some deeds are so bad, will do such damage, that they should never be rewarded with a return to elected office. If Fast Track passes, then TPP will almost certainly pass, the Trans-Atlantic version, TTIP (or as some call it, TAFTA) will pass, and TISA, the horrible "service sector" agreement will also pass. These agreements will not only remake the world economy, as NAFTA did, but on a much larger scale — they will also neuter the sovereignty of every nation that signs them. Which of your elected representatives would you like to reward after saying yes to that? How about ... none of them? Starting with Ron Wyden, who greased the skids in the Senate, and people like House member Jim Costa (click to help tell him how you feel about his TPP support).
Supporting NAFTA Was the Kiss of Death for Democrats
Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies has taken a look at the NAFTA vote, one very similar to the current Fast Track and TPP vote, in that Democrats were heavily lobbied by their leaders to say yes, despite widespread understanding that NAFTA would be a job-killer. Remember, the NAFTA vote came not long after a presidential campaign in which Ross Perot talked about that "giant sucking sound going south," the sound of jobs moving to Mexico. (Feel free to remind yourself about that moment by watching the short video at the top.) Sarah Anderson, writing on the consequences to Democrats of their NAFTA votes, opens with a bit of context and a question:
Supporting NAFTA Was the Kiss of Death for Democrats --Why Dems Should Think Twice About Voting for TPP
As President Obama twists arms to pass “fast track,” a look back at the Democrats who helped Clinton win the bloody trade battle of 1993.
It’s serious flashback time for those involved in the 1993 debate over the North America Free Trade Agreement. With the “fast track” trade vote expected as early as this Thursday, a Democratic president is once again twisting arms and dangling rewards in a desperate effort to muster votes for a corporate-driven trade deal. And just like in 1993, the vote will be one of those rare bipartisan moments in Washington. The word is only about a dozen members remain on the fence, most of them Democrats. The president is reportedly putting the tightest screws on members of the Congressional Black Caucus. After the NAFTA wheeling and dealing began in earnest back in 1993, it didn’t take long to push enough Dems off the fence. All these years later, NAFTA remains the basic blueprint for every U.S. trade deal.
Let me skip over NAFTA’s failure to deliver on promises for workers, the environment, human rights, etc. These have all been extensively documented over the years by the Institute for Policy Studies, and many others across the continent. President Obama acknowledged its flaws himself when he made a campaign trail promise to renegotiate the deal. Instead, let’s take a look at what individual members got by helping to ram the pact through Congress. Did their support for the big business lobby’s dream deal ensure a glittering political career?
She then discusses House Speaker Tom Foley:
Starting at the top: Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley sided with the White House and against most of the House Democrats, including Majority Leader Richard Gephardt. In his 30-year political career, that controversial move stood out enough for the New York Times to mention it in Foley’s obituary. A year after the NAFTA vote, the obit noted, “Mr. Foley became the first speaker since the Civil War to be defeated for re-election in his own district.” Ouch. While Foley’s defeat can’t be attributed to a single factor, his decision to side with the corporate lobby on NAFTA certainly didn’t prevent his electoral humiliation either.
What about all the Clinton White House promises of special safeguards that would shield members from disastrous consequences for their constituents?
In a detailed 2001 report following up on the NAFTA deals, Public Citizen concluded that “systematically, the White House promises of special safeguards for U.S. farm commodities, bridges and more remained unfulfilled. Exceptions were several meaningless promises, such as photographs with the president, and one campaign fund-raising event.”
"Photographs with the president." Sounds like those rides on Air Force One that Obama is offering, as he flies to Germany to meet with the G7:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/obama-twists-arms-tpp-lets-take-look-back-dems-who-sold-us-out-nafta
As President Obama twists arms to pass “fast track,” a look back at the Democrats who helped Clinton win the bloody trade battle of 1993.
It’s serious flashback time for those involved in the 1993 debate over the North America Free Trade Agreement. With the “fast track” trade vote expected as early as this Thursday, a Democratic president is once again twisting arms and dangling rewards in a desperate effort to muster votes for a corporate-driven trade deal. And just like in 1993, the vote will be one of those rare bipartisan moments in Washington. The word is only about a dozen members remain on the fence, most of them Democrats. The president is reportedly putting the tightest screws on members of the Congressional Black Caucus. After the NAFTA wheeling and dealing began in earnest back in 1993, it didn’t take long to push enough Dems off the fence. All these years later, NAFTA remains the basic blueprint for every U.S. trade deal.
Let me skip over NAFTA’s failure to deliver on promises for workers, the environment, human rights, etc. These have all been extensively documented over the years by the Institute for Policy Studies, and many others across the continent. President Obama acknowledged its flaws himself when he made a campaign trail promise to renegotiate the deal. Instead, let’s take a look at what individual members got by helping to ram the pact through Congress. Did their support for the big business lobby’s dream deal ensure a glittering political career?
She then discusses House Speaker Tom Foley:
Starting at the top: Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley sided with the White House and against most of the House Democrats, including Majority Leader Richard Gephardt. In his 30-year political career, that controversial move stood out enough for the New York Times to mention it in Foley’s obituary. A year after the NAFTA vote, the obit noted, “Mr. Foley became the first speaker since the Civil War to be defeated for re-election in his own district.” Ouch. While Foley’s defeat can’t be attributed to a single factor, his decision to side with the corporate lobby on NAFTA certainly didn’t prevent his electoral humiliation either.
What about all the Clinton White House promises of special safeguards that would shield members from disastrous consequences for their constituents?
In a detailed 2001 report following up on the NAFTA deals, Public Citizen concluded that “systematically, the White House promises of special safeguards for U.S. farm commodities, bridges and more remained unfulfilled. Exceptions were several meaningless promises, such as photographs with the president, and one campaign fund-raising event.”
"Photographs with the president." Sounds like those rides on Air Force One that Obama is offering, as he flies to Germany to meet with the G7:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/obama-twists-arms-tpp-lets-take-look-back-dems-who-sold-us-out-nafta
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
June 10, 2015
Democratic presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee on Wednesday likened Hillary Clinton to a Republican, citing her hawkish positions on foreign policy. "Really the main difference is our approach to the world," Chafee said in an interview Wednesday on "Fox and Friends," mentioning ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.
The former Rhode Island governor is mounting a long-shot bid against Clinton, who is running well ahead of all her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. Chafee has dished up relentless criticism of Clinton's 2002 vote as a senator authorizing the Iraq war, and has described her muscular approach to foreign policy as similar to the neo-conservatives who were part of the George W. Bush administration.
Last week he also discussed "questionable ethics practices" that have followed Clinton over the years. "I think that our candidates should stick to the ideas that draw a contrast between our party and our party's agenda and the Republicans," Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) said on CNN when pressed whether Chafee's comments were appropriate. Chafee somewhat doubled down Wednesday over his criticism of Clinton. "Well obviously she has a credibility problem over a long history of ethical questions, most recently with the emails and the Clinton Foundation donations," he said on MSNBC.
cont'
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/244532-chafee-hillary-is-more-like-the-republicans
Chafee: Hillary is 'MORE LIKE The Republicans'
Democratic presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee on Wednesday likened Hillary Clinton to a Republican, citing her hawkish positions on foreign policy. "Really the main difference is our approach to the world," Chafee said in an interview Wednesday on "Fox and Friends," mentioning ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.
"She's more like the Republicans," Chafee said. "My argument is, you won't have a choice if Secretary Clinton is the Democratic nominee because she's so similar to the Republicans."
He echoed that sentiment in another interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," suggesting his party nominate "someone that differs from the Republican approach to the world."
"Where we're going in the world — her tenure as secretary of State, her vote for the Iraq war — kind of indicates a similarity to the Republican candidates that are running," he said on MSNBC.
He echoed that sentiment in another interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," suggesting his party nominate "someone that differs from the Republican approach to the world."
"Where we're going in the world — her tenure as secretary of State, her vote for the Iraq war — kind of indicates a similarity to the Republican candidates that are running," he said on MSNBC.
The former Rhode Island governor is mounting a long-shot bid against Clinton, who is running well ahead of all her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. Chafee has dished up relentless criticism of Clinton's 2002 vote as a senator authorizing the Iraq war, and has described her muscular approach to foreign policy as similar to the neo-conservatives who were part of the George W. Bush administration.
Last week he also discussed "questionable ethics practices" that have followed Clinton over the years. "I think that our candidates should stick to the ideas that draw a contrast between our party and our party's agenda and the Republicans," Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) said on CNN when pressed whether Chafee's comments were appropriate. Chafee somewhat doubled down Wednesday over his criticism of Clinton. "Well obviously she has a credibility problem over a long history of ethical questions, most recently with the emails and the Clinton Foundation donations," he said on MSNBC.
cont'
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/244532-chafee-hillary-is-more-like-the-republicans
June 10, 2015
I was born in NYC and my parents moved to Nassau County when I was a kid so they could raise me and my sisters in the suburbs. That's a typical story for folks who live in Nassau County today. My folks moved to Valley Stream first and then out to Roosevelt, both of which are in NY-04, the Nassau County district represented by conservative New Dem Kathleen Rice. And Rice, a former Nassau County District Attorney, has a similar story. Her NYC family moved out to Long Island when she was a child as well. Rice, who had just run as the conservaDem against progressive Eric Schneiderman for New York Attorney General, was hand-picked by Steve Israel to run for the seat Carolyn McCarthy was giving up. The district runs from New Hyde Park and Westbury in the north down through Hempstead, Franklin Square, Uniondale, Baldwin, Rockville Centre and Wantagh to the Five Towns and Long Beach in the south. The PVI is D+3 and Obama beat McCain 55-44% in 2008 and then beat Romney 56-43% in 2012. Last year Rice beat her Republican opponent, Bruce Blakeman, 85,294 (52.7%) to 76,515 (47.3%).
NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo appointed her to the scandal-plagued Moreland Commission that was created to whitewash his own egregious corruption. Just the kind of Democrat shady Establishment types crave! So it should surprise no one that Rice has come out in favor of the job-destroying TPP and Fast Track. The New Dem Caucus is ground zero for Fast Track support among Democrats, and last week it was Rice and fellow wishy-washy New Dem Suzan DelBene (WA) who "buckled under pressure" and flip-flopped, going over to the Wall Street position. The AFL-CIO started running an ad in Nassau County (above) that asks, "Why should we ever trust Kathleen Rice again?"
Maybe a better question the AFL-CIO should be asking itself is why did it ever trust Kathleen Rice to begin with? Or any Blue Dogs or New Dems. These Wall Street-backed DINOs are not the friends of working families, and unions should stop propping them up entirely. Rice's ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is an unsatisfactory 72.72, one of the worst scores of any New York Democrat; it has earned her an "F" rating. The AFL-CIO and other Democratic constituency groups that identify with a progressive agenda should just stop backing transactional conservatives like Rice when they first run. Once they get into Congress, even the AFL-CIO can't hold them accountable for voting with Boehner and McCarthy. You'll never find a Wall Street-oriented Democrat like Rice on the Blue America page of endorsed House candidates.
~snip~
The AFL-CIO is spending over $100,000 on TV-- which started yesterday-- to make sure working families in Nassau County know about Rice's perfidy. And next Monday evening union members, Working Families Party members, MoveOn activists and Sierra Club and Food and Water Watch members are planning protests in front of Rice's district office, just the way progressive groups rallied against TPP and Pelosi's push to shove it down Democrats' throats today. Meanwhile, The Hill is keeping a whip count of which Congressmembers are on Wall Street's side and which are siding with working families and their own constituents.
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
AFL-CIO: Which Kathleen Rice? (STOP FAST TRACK)
"...It's satisfying to see unions finally stepping up and slamming conservative Democrats who back GOP policies that harm the financial security of their own members-- the way they did with New Dem shithead Ami Bera last week. (Blue America is planning a similar approach to reactionary Blue Dog Jim Costa if he goes through with his pledge to vote for Fast Track.).."
I was born in NYC and my parents moved to Nassau County when I was a kid so they could raise me and my sisters in the suburbs. That's a typical story for folks who live in Nassau County today. My folks moved to Valley Stream first and then out to Roosevelt, both of which are in NY-04, the Nassau County district represented by conservative New Dem Kathleen Rice. And Rice, a former Nassau County District Attorney, has a similar story. Her NYC family moved out to Long Island when she was a child as well. Rice, who had just run as the conservaDem against progressive Eric Schneiderman for New York Attorney General, was hand-picked by Steve Israel to run for the seat Carolyn McCarthy was giving up. The district runs from New Hyde Park and Westbury in the north down through Hempstead, Franklin Square, Uniondale, Baldwin, Rockville Centre and Wantagh to the Five Towns and Long Beach in the south. The PVI is D+3 and Obama beat McCain 55-44% in 2008 and then beat Romney 56-43% in 2012. Last year Rice beat her Republican opponent, Bruce Blakeman, 85,294 (52.7%) to 76,515 (47.3%).
NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo appointed her to the scandal-plagued Moreland Commission that was created to whitewash his own egregious corruption. Just the kind of Democrat shady Establishment types crave! So it should surprise no one that Rice has come out in favor of the job-destroying TPP and Fast Track. The New Dem Caucus is ground zero for Fast Track support among Democrats, and last week it was Rice and fellow wishy-washy New Dem Suzan DelBene (WA) who "buckled under pressure" and flip-flopped, going over to the Wall Street position. The AFL-CIO started running an ad in Nassau County (above) that asks, "Why should we ever trust Kathleen Rice again?"
Maybe a better question the AFL-CIO should be asking itself is why did it ever trust Kathleen Rice to begin with? Or any Blue Dogs or New Dems. These Wall Street-backed DINOs are not the friends of working families, and unions should stop propping them up entirely. Rice's ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is an unsatisfactory 72.72, one of the worst scores of any New York Democrat; it has earned her an "F" rating. The AFL-CIO and other Democratic constituency groups that identify with a progressive agenda should just stop backing transactional conservatives like Rice when they first run. Once they get into Congress, even the AFL-CIO can't hold them accountable for voting with Boehner and McCarthy. You'll never find a Wall Street-oriented Democrat like Rice on the Blue America page of endorsed House candidates.
~snip~
The AFL-CIO is spending over $100,000 on TV-- which started yesterday-- to make sure working families in Nassau County know about Rice's perfidy. And next Monday evening union members, Working Families Party members, MoveOn activists and Sierra Club and Food and Water Watch members are planning protests in front of Rice's district office, just the way progressive groups rallied against TPP and Pelosi's push to shove it down Democrats' throats today. Meanwhile, The Hill is keeping a whip count of which Congressmembers are on Wall Street's side and which are siding with working families and their own constituents.
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
June 10, 2015
.
Rachel Maddow Interviews LINCOLN CHAFEE
Rachel Maddow of MSNBC interviews presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee.
.
June 10, 2015
Oh well, there you go.......now I feel much safer that Crisp Christie has spoken out on this issue...........
At a Goffstown, New Hampshire town meeting on Monday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie advocated adopting a “military approach” to dealing with China. Although the New Jersey Governor has not officially kicked off his candidacy, his foray into discussing foreign policy in the first GOP presidential primary state, left little doubt about his intentions. Governor Christie told the town hall audience that America needed to take a “military approach” and let the Chinese ”know there are limits to what they’re allowed to do.” In discussing China’s activity in the South China Sea, Christie added:
Governor Christie has been trying to gain traction in the crowded GOP presidential field, but he has been unable to set himself apart from other candidates. Social conservatives distrust him, and free market fundamentalists have better options as well. Chris Christie’s comments on China appear to be an effort to win over neo-conservative foreign policy hawks. Though ex-Florida Governor Jeb Bush and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham may also be vying to carve out that niche, Chris Christie raised the ante by hinting at taking military action against China.
The problem for Governor Christie is that talk is cheap and while his calls for military action may sound like tough talk, he lacks a realistic plan for how to conduct such action without triggering potentially dangerous consequences. It is one thing to engage in bellicose saber-rattling rhetoric on the campaign trail to drum up votes, and quite another matter to engage in a confrontation with China’s large military force.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/09/chris-christie-calls-starting-war-china.html
Chris Christie Calls For STARTING A WAR With China
"...Chris Christie’s rhetoric is irresponsible, and America would do better to reject him in favor of a more sober and diplomatic leader. The last Republican president launched a costly and needless war in Iraq. One can only imagine how much worse trying to start a war with China would turn out..."
Oh well, there you go.......now I feel much safer that Crisp Christie has spoken out on this issue...........
At a Goffstown, New Hampshire town meeting on Monday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie advocated adopting a “military approach” to dealing with China. Although the New Jersey Governor has not officially kicked off his candidacy, his foray into discussing foreign policy in the first GOP presidential primary state, left little doubt about his intentions. Governor Christie told the town hall audience that America needed to take a “military approach” and let the Chinese ”know there are limits to what they’re allowed to do.” In discussing China’s activity in the South China Sea, Christie added:
That is an issue that we can handle militarily by going out there and making sure that we show them that we don’t respect their claims to these artificial islands in the South China Sea that they’re building, that they’re saying are theirs that are hundreds and hundreds of miles from the coast of China and are clearly in international waters. We need to send that signal to the Chinese very clearly that we do not acknowledge nor will we respect their claims to those areas.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/christie-sounds-like-hes-running-in-new-hampshire/2015/06/08/e036e776-0e59-11e5-a0fe-dccfea4653ee_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/christie-sounds-like-hes-running-in-new-hampshire/2015/06/08/e036e776-0e59-11e5-a0fe-dccfea4653ee_story.html
Governor Christie has been trying to gain traction in the crowded GOP presidential field, but he has been unable to set himself apart from other candidates. Social conservatives distrust him, and free market fundamentalists have better options as well. Chris Christie’s comments on China appear to be an effort to win over neo-conservative foreign policy hawks. Though ex-Florida Governor Jeb Bush and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham may also be vying to carve out that niche, Chris Christie raised the ante by hinting at taking military action against China.
The problem for Governor Christie is that talk is cheap and while his calls for military action may sound like tough talk, he lacks a realistic plan for how to conduct such action without triggering potentially dangerous consequences. It is one thing to engage in bellicose saber-rattling rhetoric on the campaign trail to drum up votes, and quite another matter to engage in a confrontation with China’s large military force.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/09/chris-christie-calls-starting-war-china.html
June 9, 2015
Democrat Hillary Clinton and her upstart rival for the presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders, will shadow one another next week as they both address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the largest gathering of Latino policy makers, at its annual conference next week.
The meeting is in Las Vegas, with Nevada one of the first states on the primary calendar next year. Mrs. Clinton will appear on Thursday, with Mr. Sanders, a Vermont independent, set for Friday, offering Mr. Sanders the opportunity to contrast his views with hers if he wants to. Another Democratic challenger, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, also has been invited but has not said if he will attend.
While Mr. Sanders has not made immigration a centerpiece issue, Mr. O’Malley has tried to position himself as having a stronger immigration record than Mrs. Clinton, and the conference could offer him a chance to make that case to more than 1,200 school board members, city and county commissioners and state lawmakers expected to attend.
Like Mrs. Clinton and Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Sanders supports a path to citizenship for people in the U.S. illegally. So far, only one of 15 likely or actual Republican presidential candidates invited to the conference has accepted—retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. While NALEO is nonpartisan, it strongly supports a path to citizenship for undocumented residents, making many Republicans wary of the group. Most of the GOP field is opposed to legal status for people here illegally.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/09/bernie-sanders-to-address-latino-politicians-group-naleo/
Bernie Sanders to Address Latino Politician Group NALEO
Democrat Hillary Clinton and her upstart rival for the presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders, will shadow one another next week as they both address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the largest gathering of Latino policy makers, at its annual conference next week.
The meeting is in Las Vegas, with Nevada one of the first states on the primary calendar next year. Mrs. Clinton will appear on Thursday, with Mr. Sanders, a Vermont independent, set for Friday, offering Mr. Sanders the opportunity to contrast his views with hers if he wants to. Another Democratic challenger, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, also has been invited but has not said if he will attend.
While Mr. Sanders has not made immigration a centerpiece issue, Mr. O’Malley has tried to position himself as having a stronger immigration record than Mrs. Clinton, and the conference could offer him a chance to make that case to more than 1,200 school board members, city and county commissioners and state lawmakers expected to attend.
Like Mrs. Clinton and Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Sanders supports a path to citizenship for people in the U.S. illegally. So far, only one of 15 likely or actual Republican presidential candidates invited to the conference has accepted—retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. While NALEO is nonpartisan, it strongly supports a path to citizenship for undocumented residents, making many Republicans wary of the group. Most of the GOP field is opposed to legal status for people here illegally.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/09/bernie-sanders-to-address-latino-politicians-group-naleo/
June 9, 2015
Share with Friends.......
Americans would be well-advised to heed presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders’ call to make public college education free. A college degree is so important to getting a decent job these days, we must begin to see higher education as a right. Some Americans pursue a college diploma; others don’t. But making sure the option is available to everyone, even those whose parents are hard-pressed to pay for it, is necessary to preserving a free society.
Sanders’ plan uses federal funds to eliminate state tuitions while drastically reducing interest rates on student loans for private colleges and universities. It will cost the federal government an estimated $70 billion per year. That sounds expensive. But, in fact, the country can easily raise the funds by taxing Wall Street stocks and derivative transactions. The proposal, called a “Robin Hood” tax, has been supported by several leading economists.
The most vociferous opposition to the plan comes from right-wing politicians, who have already caused so much damage to college students. It’s been too little publicized that House Republicans voted recently to curtail federal student financial aid programs, even proposing to freeze student Pell Grants. These House members are divorced from the reality a lot of young people face. The financial barriers to attending college are higher than ever. It’s uncertain how many potential students don’t go to college because of the cost. We do know, however, that college enrollment has declined by approximately 1 million since 2011. Eliminating public college tuition could reverse the trend.
We also know that while a decade ago student debt totaled $300 billion, today it has risen to more than $1 trillion. The average debt of a student is $30,000. In 2013, 42 percent of black students carried loan debt, compared to only 28 percent of whites. The trap exacerbates the wealth gap between races. But debt leads to unnecessary financial stress on all young graduates. Many have to take a second, usually low-paying, job to make ends meet. And young people in debt have less money to invest. Studies have shown that heavy student debt leads fewer graduates to risk starting their own small businesses. They also are much more likely to put off for many years big purchases such as a new car or a home. The debt trap is sapping America of its entrepreneurial spirit and preventing college graduates from joining the middle class.
cont'
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/jun/09/bernie-sanders-has-it-right-free-society-education/
Bernie Sanders HAS IT RIGHT: In A Free Society, EDUCATION SHOULD BE FREE
"...Many students who take on crushing debt as the price of a college degree experience immense pressure to “make it pay” and earn a degree in a lucrative field. A healthy society cannot only educate MBAs. Eliminating college tuition would inspire more students to go to school to contribute to society as teachers, historians, researchers or employees in the nonprofit sector. Student debt is a shackle encumbering our society. It’s time to begin discussing ways to remove this shackle and allow more young people a chance to achieve their potential. Sanders’ proposal is a welcome addition to the discussion...."
Share with Friends.......
Americans would be well-advised to heed presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders’ call to make public college education free. A college degree is so important to getting a decent job these days, we must begin to see higher education as a right. Some Americans pursue a college diploma; others don’t. But making sure the option is available to everyone, even those whose parents are hard-pressed to pay for it, is necessary to preserving a free society.
“It is totally unacceptable that Americans are drowning in $1.2 trillion in student loan debt,” Sanders, I-Vt., said. “It is unacceptable that millions of college graduates cannot afford to buy their first home or their first car because of the outrageously high interest rates they are paying on student debt.”
Sanders’ plan uses federal funds to eliminate state tuitions while drastically reducing interest rates on student loans for private colleges and universities. It will cost the federal government an estimated $70 billion per year. That sounds expensive. But, in fact, the country can easily raise the funds by taxing Wall Street stocks and derivative transactions. The proposal, called a “Robin Hood” tax, has been supported by several leading economists.
The most vociferous opposition to the plan comes from right-wing politicians, who have already caused so much damage to college students. It’s been too little publicized that House Republicans voted recently to curtail federal student financial aid programs, even proposing to freeze student Pell Grants. These House members are divorced from the reality a lot of young people face. The financial barriers to attending college are higher than ever. It’s uncertain how many potential students don’t go to college because of the cost. We do know, however, that college enrollment has declined by approximately 1 million since 2011. Eliminating public college tuition could reverse the trend.
We also know that while a decade ago student debt totaled $300 billion, today it has risen to more than $1 trillion. The average debt of a student is $30,000. In 2013, 42 percent of black students carried loan debt, compared to only 28 percent of whites. The trap exacerbates the wealth gap between races. But debt leads to unnecessary financial stress on all young graduates. Many have to take a second, usually low-paying, job to make ends meet. And young people in debt have less money to invest. Studies have shown that heavy student debt leads fewer graduates to risk starting their own small businesses. They also are much more likely to put off for many years big purchases such as a new car or a home. The debt trap is sapping America of its entrepreneurial spirit and preventing college graduates from joining the middle class.
cont'
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/jun/09/bernie-sanders-has-it-right-free-society-education/
June 9, 2015
Share with Friends......
Bernie Sanders is the MAINSTREAM CANDIDATE
Share with Friends......
Bernie Sanders is the mainstream candidate
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
