JUXTAPOSITION WORTH TWO THOUSAND WORDS: Some politicians are greedy enough for campaign cash that they suck up to billionaires. Not all. But some.

A tale of two images.

source

Hey, Billionaires! You CAN have it all!   Just show tangible  gratitude.

Also, a wine cave fundraiser can be the start of something big. REALLY BIG! Bigger than South Bend, Indiana.

MORAL HAZARD --- What Eric Holder could learn from VietNam, (having not been there for combat). Eric Holder who served the nation as Attorney General during the 2008 crash aftermath where not one single Wall Street crook was jailed. Not for anything, securitization of junk mortgages sold as if sound, or otherwise for anything. Wall Street banks had prolonged a bubble, and got a bailout without blame. Bailed out, nobody jailed.

MORAL HAZARD -
Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[Search domain simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
Moral hazard is a term used in economics. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman explains moral hazard as "any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly."

VIETNAM -

source - click each image to enlarge and read

HOLDER -

source: https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/h/eric-holder

OBAMA, BIDEN, HOLDER DAYS ARE HISTORY FROM WHICH LEARNING IS FEASIBLE. LEARNING RE REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF FUTURE CONDUCT, GIVEN HISTORICAL TRUTH OF WALL STREET PERPS DODGING JAIL ENTIRELY, EACH AND EVERY. WHILE BAILED OUT FROM RISK AND DOOM BY GOVERNMENT MONEY. A MOST RECENT HISTORY OF DC-WALL STREET COOPERATIVE MORAL HAZARD SELF-INDULGENCE. BIPARTISAN BAILOUTS ARE BEST -

ANY QUESTIONS?

LET'S RAISE THE ANTE - WIKIPEDIA DOING A HOLDER BIO:

In 1969, while a freshman at Columbia, Holder was one of several dozen students who staged an occupation of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps office, renaming it as the Malcolm X student center.

Nothing in the Wiki item mentions anything such as bonespurs, hence, one can infer Holder dodged the draft primarily with a student deferement. Given Holder's use of Malcolm's legacy and persona when it fit his will, and then later being the big Covington white collar crime defense dude and all, there is irony in Holder's return to Covington (after his having issued "avoid jail" wallet cards for every Wall Street criminal large or small during Obama years away from Covington). The irony is that Malcolm would shun Holder over such compromise with "the Devil" as Malcolm saw things. Malcolm would like Bernie much better than Biden or Holder. Ya betcha, or perhaps not. He could have lumped Bernie with his own early view of Dr. King's integrationist approach toward racism. Malcolm would have enjoyed seeing the Obama presidency, viewing it as a commentary subject, or a lesson opportunity. Especially if seeing it after his Hajj.

Do you expect Mayor Pete at the wine cave and to Google folks said, "Decisions and actions under my presidency will change things, you rich folks will have to suck it up, accept less, and fundamentaly change"?

Biden drew heat for telling his rich private audience of big money contributors - wealthy donors to his effort - nothing would fundamentally change. He knew his audience. Do you believe Mayor Pete knows his audience less? What is believed here at Crabgrass is that whatever gets promised behind closed doors to ultra wealthy donors is what, in fact, will be what happens if the perp making big money promises gets elected. Those people keep score. They know what they want to hear, and keep score, and that is why in 2016 Ms. Clinton shaking the Goldman Sachs money tree for six-figure closed-audience fee cash going to her personally and not any campaign treasury, told the Wall Streeters that nobody knew better than them how their business should be allowed or regulated.

Bernie owes nothing to big money, and enjoys telling big money that fact. Telling them indirectly, at his massively popular rallies among the rest of us, because he refuses to take money to address big money players in cozy private conclaves.

With the people as his contributors Bernie promises nothing and owes nothing to anyone but the people. Consequent differences exist in policy thought, Bernie vs. Biden and Buttigeig. Bernie wants not to rock boats, but to rock yachts. Bless Bernie. Bless Warren. Each offers a needed and treasured political option to business as usual.

____________UPDATE____________
I wonder if others awaiting the chance to vote Trump out and Bernie in feel like the little children on the long auto trip, "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" We have to wait too long to get there, and despite "undecided" poll numbers, almost everyone now really should know who they favor and will be voting for. Here, Bernie in the primary, and whichever of the two, Bernie and Liz, gets the party nomination. If it is neither of the two, the Democrats will be buying four more Trump years rather than seeing the other option of a populist progressive being president. If the Democratic Party inner operatives prefer four more Trump years over change, they march like dinosaurs to extinction - political extinction being irrelevance without lobbying options after public service because the old ways will not cozily influence good new people.

__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Readers might wish to try this experiment, and to then contemplate implications of the result:

Compare the healthcare policy positions of Buttigieg and Biden and this industry-backed propaganda outlet:

captured from: https://americashealthcarefuture.org/

That propaganda mill's working membership and funding members all have huge stakes in protecting their profitable status quo against single payer reform.

That report listing the players shows who is in mortal fear of Bernie and the common sense he is offering against the less than reasonable status quo. They will spend a lot to try sidetracking Bernie and Warren, each of whom proposes a version of transition to single payer on a short time frame [movement within a first four-year term]. Bernie would act quicker and more forcefully, but the two share an ultimate aim fully against the pecuniary interests of the entire array of status quo drum beaters - politicians, passive investors chasing yield, [or both, e.g., Sen. Tina and Archie Smith]; as well as bankers and industry insiders not wanting their wealth shared under anyone's share-the-wealth politics.

__________FURTHER UPDATE_________
From this past February, more on the med. industry propaganda mill.

After crony appointment of Sivarajah she gets a crony salary, but Anoka County politicians see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

Although Strib (not the local paper) reports Matt Look CYA objection to the 5-1 decision, the deal got done. Those county politicians form quite a tight club. It's the peoples' fault for electing them, thereby getting the government they deserve. As a general rule, vote the incumbent out unless an exceptional job is done. That is how you end up having exceptional people. Reelecting mediocrity never improves any government. Yet the beat goes on.

UPDATE: Lakeland Broadcasting's online coverage is tightly well written:

(Anoka County, MN) -- Anoka County administrator and former Commissioner Rhonda Sivarajah is getting a ten-thousand dollar pay raise. The raise is double the pay hike rate for many employees and was awarded by the County Board she used to chair. Only one commissioner dissented in the vote this week on the six-percent raise for Sivarajah, saying the increase looks like cronyism. Sivarajah's raise follows three-percent raises for county officials that commissioners approved earlier this month.

It would be offensive if the council were to insist they must pay Sivirajah top dollar so that she does not move to some other job in some other county. That thought is absurd. That is no threat; her cronies are here. She's housed outside the county, but that does not mean she'd relocate jobs; and that is so with or without the most recent additional largess toward her (with public money) by former elected colleagues she used to cordially chair.

Tax the bastards. Hopefully this is an instance of benefit from the power to tax being alleged to be the power to destroy.

Voters support a corporate lobbyist tax by a 59-22 margin, while about 1 in 5 voters remain undecided. According to https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/ the sentiment crosses voter party lines.

What is needed are politicians who would advance and support such a tax. We have them, and they are called "progressives" as opposed to the rest, who are called troglodytes.

True and decent progressives fit the job description of those who should and would make government decisions about curbing lobbying. With too common a career path, the Daschle path, being first to win office as a politician in Congress to build a power base and full rolodex and then to retire from public duty to take on a lobbying wealth bonanza being popular among politicians, (even if not a beloved practice to voters); then having enough of those "progressives" in office who eschew such a fiscally rewarding career path is a goal.

If the power to tax truly is the power to destroy, the term creative destruction comes to mind.

Concentrated capital enjoys lobbying possibilities but has no lock on the practice being innate to human nature, or necessarily eternal. That is so, even though concentrated capital's power is vast. While taxing lobbyists has not seized the day, yet, the test is whether concentrated capital, in government and media, can stall taxing the perps indefinitely.

Or will Bernie become President, when much current nonsense would stop?

A saga online of how you cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Time, this link. Defending the indefensible - bribery - offering a bribe, release of allocated but withheld funds, in exchange for dirt on the Biden family - is a defensive effort requiring innovation and alteration, as the lasso tightens. Presidents having to behave better is such a clear bottom line that defense of such wrong behavior is, putting it mildly, a challenge.

Is there such a word as "theosniper?" The reason I ask, ...

Strib carrying an AP feed titled, "Evangelical tussling over anti-Trump editorial escalates," featuring coverage of one camp of true believers sniping at another, with fire back, leading to the headline question. Of note in the report:

100 conservative evangelicals closed ranks further around Trump on Sunday.

In a letter to the president of Christianity Today magazine, the group of evangelicals chided Editor-in-Chief Mark Galli for penning an anti-Trump editorial, published Thursday, that they portrayed as a dig at their characters as well as the president’s.

“Your editorial offensively questioned the spiritual integrity and Christian witness of tens-of-millions of believers who take seriously their civic and moral obligations,” the evangelicals wrote to the magazine’s president, Timothy Dalrymple.

The new offensive from the group of prominent evangelicals, including multiple members of Trump’s evangelical advisory board, signals a lingering awareness by the president’s backers that any meaningful crack in his longtime support from that segment of the Christian community could prove perilous for his reelection hopes.

[...] “We're not looking for saints. We do have private sins, ongoing patterns of behavior that reveal themselves in our private life that we're all trying to work on,” Galli said Sunday. “But a president has certain responsibilities as a public figure to display a certain level of public character and public morality.”

Galli referred comment on Sunday’s evangelical letter to Dalrymple, who on Sunday published his own strongly worded defense of the magazine's anti-Trump commentary.

Countering Trump's suggestion that the magazine had shifted to favor liberals, Dalrymple wrote that the publication is in fact “theologically conservative” and “does not endorse candidates.”

“Out of love for Jesus and his church, not for political partisanship or intellectual elitism, this is why we feel compelled to say that the alliance of American evangelicalism with this presidency has wrought enormous damage to Christian witness,” Dalrymple wrote.

Asked about the editorial’s indictment of Trump by “Fox News Sunday,” Marc Short – chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, himself a prominent evangelical Christian – cited some of the policy positions that have helped endear the president to many in that voting bloc.

“For a lot of us who are celebrating the birth of our Savior this week, the way that we look at it is that this president has helped to save thousands of similar unplanned pregnancies,” Short said Sunday, adding that “no president has been a greater ally to Israel than this president.”

Short might consider a sincerity session with an agent of his "Savior." Throwing the little embryo snake onto the Trump\impeachment discussion podium ought to be counseled as an overreach. As a grotesquely insane thing to interject into an already strange situation. If he wants to talk about the embryos I want to talk about casino bankruptcies, hush money, bonespurs and flying monkeys of the one witch in the Wizard of Oz. In going off point, go way off point.

Call this "The Postal Pete Post," or how strong is Mayor Pete's union support?

Research for yourself to see if the Mayor has any union endorsements.

Next, Pistol Pete Maravich was a skilled NBA guard, since deceased. Postal Pete Buttigieg is a former McKinsey insider who had duties with the a U.S. Post Office consulting team at McKinsey, reported by HuffPo as possibly meriting for Buttigeig the nickname, Postal Privatization Pete. Read and see if you can see how another might read that characterization as a possible conclusion that thinking voters upon reflection might reach. HuffPo wrote:

On Tuesday he released his client list from 2007 to 2010, which included the Postal Service. Since then, Buttigieg, who has seen a significant bump in recent early state polls, has faced scrutiny for what he did at McKinsey, a company known for prioritizing corporate profits.

The outcome of that 2010 Postal Service project was a report, drawing on suggestions from McKinsey and two other consulting groups. It was fairly critical of revenue-raising ideas supported by union workers, like expanding financial services through the post office, warning they would be “limited by high operating costs and the relatively light customer traffic of Post Offices compared to commercial retailers.”

But in a statement to HuffPost, the Buttigieg campaign distanced the mayor from that report, insisting he didn’t work on cost-cutting but rather focused on raising revenue through products like greeting cards.

Whatever impression you as a reader draw from that one article, presume there will be other ongoing web attention on Pete's McKinsey years. Try to check back even, a time or two, via websearch for "Buttigeig McKinsey clients." The question might have a "growing legs" answer, or become nd as a dead end street, news-wise.

Last, if you can find one single union man or woman happy with what was done to postal employment, ask the bunny if he/she likes the midwest small town mayor enough to vote his way.

UPDATE: Guardian reports. Another online report. A websearch.

The web address peteswinecave.com leads to . . .

Try it: peteswinecave.com

It is not a malicious site. It is timely. It is opportune. If you think Mayor Pete should be back running South Bend and not hob-nobbing with ultra wealthy individuals gathered to buy influence, if so, then you might find an insight at the peteswinecave.com website suggesting you do something positive toward a good end.

The Hill explains. Daily Beast coverage includes an image:

Additional coverage: The Atlantic, "Social Media Made America Tired of Rich People -- It used to be easier to hide your wine cave."

Vox, "Pete Buttigieg is raising money from Silicon Valley’s billionaires — even as Elizabeth Warren attacks him for it -- The families of Eric Schmidt, Reed Hastings, and Sergey Brin are hosting a fundraiser for Buttigieg on Monday." The item expands:

A host list circulated to prospective donors for an event on Monday morning in Palo Alto, California, features individuals with family ties to some of the most prominent people in Big Tech. Netflix CEO and co-founder Reed Hastings is listed as a co-host of the event, as is Nicole Shanahan, the wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin; Wendy Schmidt, the wife of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt; and Michelle Sandberg, the sister of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, sources say.

The inclusion of these people on the list says nothing definitive about who Sergey Brin, Sheryl Sandberg, or Eric Schmidt themselves will support in the 2020 race, of course. But the event’s host list is a reminder of Buttigieg’s ties to Silicon Valley, which are increasingly becoming front-and-center in the presidential campaign thanks to Elizabeth Warren, who is raising questions about Buttigieg’s relationships with major contributors.

At a time when Big Tech and elite donors are on the ropes in Democratic politics, Buttigieg is embracing both more than his rivals. How voters respond will be an indication of how much they care about candidates’ connections to Silicon Valley titans.

[...] The Palo Alto event is one of four Buttigieg fundraisers being hosted in the Bay Area beginning on Sunday evening. In Napa Valley, Buttigieg will be hosted by Kathryn Hall for “An Evening in the Vineyards with Mayor Pete,” according to an invitation seen by Recode.

[...] To close out the trip in San Francisco, Buttigieg will be hosted by art gallery owner Jeffrey Fraenkel and Sabrina Buell, who belongs to a family famous for its political fundraising. In a sign of Buttigieg’s appeal, that event — which has only one asking price, the maximum individual contribution limit of $2,800 — is sold out, a rarity in presidential fundraising.

But it is the Palo Alto event that is likely to turn heads. The Brin, Schmidt, Hastings, and Sandberg families have a combined net worth of about $80 billion, according to estimates. These co-hosts are promised an “intimate meeting with Mayor Pete” at the coffee fundraiser in exchange for donating $2,800 apiece to his campaign, according to the invitation.

[links in original, italics added], The Hall-Napa Valley shindig is the "wine cave" special.

Mayor Pete event entry fees set at $2800, are that low because by law event fees could be no bigger (no individual can contribute more to a federal candidate's committee than that $2800 amount in any election cycle, these funding events being for the Democratic primary).

Of note, the mentioned $80 billion hosting net worth hitters, include "Big Data" titan families which oversee Google, a firm Warren would break up on antitrust reasoning, given their stranglehold over our private information, how they harvest it when we use the internet and how they make their fortunes grow even more by selling your web history information for money. If you Google "herpes" or "cancer" Google knows it, and can sell such info to health insurers. Google profiles you, and targeting advertisers do pay well.

These families like Mayor Pete, who presumably differs on antitrust policy with Warren.

---------

FINALLY: So that you know - the peteswinecave.com site offers no abiding chance of anyone buying influence. But if you like it, respond.


__________UPDATE___________
Strib, a day after this post went online, published an op-ed feed from WaPo saying the winecave SNAFU is overblown, and it was not a convention of scheming billionaires. Which might be true. This is why among several reports of midwest mayor in Golden State, the quoted story, above, was chosen. The high entry priced event with the Google billionaires and the Netflix billionaire likely was the bigger cash play event on the Indiana small town Mayor's money tree shaking adventure to Californialand. The image of the elite wine cave does have more resonance, judging from press coverage, but

Google Billionaires for Pete

is the story with an arguably greater gravitas. The heavy hitters with much at stake event. Wineries will do okay, Warren or the little Mayor as President; but Liz projects the greater interest in reforming monopoly powers holding sway over your private data and mine, a gravitas that Hall wines lacks. Hall wines sells cachet and high Wine Spectator ratings; not your medical web searches, your IRS site access history, or whether, when, and how you've used Craig's List.

"HALL Wine Club Membership offers VIP treatment, exclusive wines, discounts and more."

"Looking for a little more TLC?

"Membership at HALL offers quarterly wine selections, VIP access, preferred pricing, tenured benefits, complimentary tastings, annual member only events and preferred access to St. Helena and Rutherford experiences."

"VIP treatment" and "more TLC" as goals seem to entail less quid pro quo than wanting to dodge the sting of antitrust enforcement aimed to allow greater competitive participation in high tech scrutiny of our web habits. Flat out truth is that Liz Warren's views of regulatory effort on behalf of the citizenry will not impact a winery's bottom line. Google has more meat in the fire. It is unfortunate for us that mainstream media seized on winecave opulence, rather than weighing relative incentive to want future access for core corporate benefit and risk, Google as opposed to Hall Wines, where weather poses more of a risk for the one, and government more of a potential risk for the other..

And then Amazon shipping and paying no state sales taxes is owned by Bezos who coincidently owns WaPo where the editorial choice was to go winecave on Mayor Pete, and not look at the Mayor's love of high tech adventurism and success, of the type Bezos, himself, has enjoyed and wishes to see continue.

Has Trump been impeached? There was a House floor vote. So?

Breitbart suggests not, as a question of Constitutional language and how it should be read. Crabgrass readers are urged to have a look. A parallel question to that raised in the Breitbart item, is Trump "impeached" if articles are sent but McConnell declines to calendar a trial; and were McConnell to do so, does the Senate minority party have a remedy (if so what, how enforced); ditto for the House? (McConnell, must he await a delivery, or can he enforce a delivery as a ministerial act, not discretionary, after a floor vote in the House.)

At some point every child learns that the circus stays for a time but then leaves town. And business gets done while the circus has all three rings going; (presuming it's a full three-ring-circus in resources and effort).

Mitch McConnell is who he is, has been, and will be. Knowing that, Pelosi is justified in declining to forward Articles of Impeachment to the Senate unless and until the two party leaders in the Senate, Chuck and Mitch, can agree upon fair process and procedure.

Strib, carrying an AP feed, "Trump rails against delay in moving impeachment to Senate -- By JILL COLVIN Associated Press -- December 20, 2019 — 9:31am," stating in part:

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump railed behind closed doors about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to delay sending articles of impeachment to the Republican-controlled Senate, putting an expected trial in limbo.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump GOP ally, emerged from a White House meeting with the president with a message.

“He is demanding his day in court," Graham said in an interview on Fox News Channel Thursday evening. “I just left President Trump. He's mad as hell that they would do this to him and now deny him his day in court." The White House did not immediately respond to questions about his account.

Trump has seen a Senate trial as his means for vindication, viewing acquittal as a partial antidote to impeachment's stain on his legacy. But that effort has been threatened by Pelosi's decision to delay sending the articles approved by the House Wednesday to the Senate until, she says, Republican leaders offer more details about how they will handle an expected trial.

“So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us,” she said late Wednesday, dropping a surprise procedural bombshell just after the House cast its historic votes making Trump only the third president in the nation's history to be impeached. House Democrats had argued for weeks that Trump’s impeachment was needed “urgently" to protect the nation.

Democrats do not have enough votes in the GOP-controlled Senate to convict Trump and remove him from office, but have been pushing for a trial to include witnesses who declined to appear during House committee hearings, including acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton.

Trump, meanwhile, has been hoping the trial will serve as an opportunity for vindication, and continues to talk about parading his own witness list, including former Vice President and 2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden, even though there is little appetite for that among Senate leaders.

“The reason the Democrats don’t want to submit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate is that they don’t want corrupt politician Adam Shifty Schiff to testify under oath, nor do they want the Whistleblower, the missing second Whistleblower, the informer, the Bidens, to testify!" Trump tweeted late Thursday.

Indeed, pro-Trump blogging has been whining loud and long over process, in the House. That recognition by Republican spokespersons fits hand-in-glove with Pelosi showing due caution that the Senate's deliberations not be subject to any comparable critique from Democrats.

Wisdom is as it does. With Trump and all his GOP men bleating about an "unfair" House dog and pony show this way, that way, all ways; Pelosi is wise in not wanting to see a revenge act: an unconstrained Dog and Pony by Mitch.

Commonsense: November 2020 is close enough that each of the stranglehold two parties should cease dominating things and let voters decide, by ballot, whether it be four more years, or ouster, a procedure that would hold intact, no president has been impeached AND removed from office over the nation's history, from Constitutional adoption, to now.

A caveat: If we could only get the millions of cqampaign slush out of things, voter decision would be an even more reliable alternative. Billionaires should not buy American elections; it is un-American to allow that.

LAST: From the opening of that AP item, it is clear that someone should show the kindness to sit with Sen. Lindsey Graham and explain to him the difference between his narrow-margin GOP Senate and "a day in court."

There is not a congruence. They differ.

Or did Lindsey not care about careful speech, with his only aim being to deliberately muddy the water, (the Senate swamp water), for partisan effect and appearances?

A "blackened moral record" is cause for what exactly?

But then, they know their Pence.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump blasted a prominent Christian magazine on Friday, a day after it published an editorial arguing that he should be removed from office because of his "blackened moral record."

Trump tweeted that Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine founded by the late Rev. Billy Graham, "would rather have a Radical Left nonbeliever, who wants to take your religion & your guns, than Donald Trump as your President."

The magazine "has been doing poorly and hasn't been involved with the Billy Graham family for many years," Trump wrote. Some of his strongest evangelical supporters, including Graham's son, rallied to his side and against the publication. Their pushback underscored Trump's hold on the evangelical voting bloc that helped propel him into office and suggested the editorial would likely do little to shake that group's loyalty.

Rev. Franklin Graham, who now leads the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and prayed at Trump's inauguration, tweeted Friday that his father would be "disappointed" in the magazine.

Trump, after all, has had suppers with women not his wife. And more. Their guy Pence avoids any chance of a blackened moral record, that way.

So it's strange love that Franklin has for Donald, but, Billy was quite a blowhard himself. A tent for a forum rather than the White House or a Tower in NYC, but blowing.

Pence? A dead fish. So young Franklin shows a form of Trumpilian swamp kinship.

An exercise in what "US" means. For non-billionaires. Pick out the billionaires in the image -

Link.

Let us be careful that we fully understand what Craig and Phillips do not tell you in their cozy little MinnPost Op-Ed.

Item titled, "Game-changing H.R. 3 would stop prescription-drug price gouging - By Reps. Angie Craig and Dean Phillips | 08:49 am" [publishing date not specified].

Before being captured by the two getting arm cramps from patting themselves on the back, consider this and this.

There is the old saying that half a loaf is better than no bread at all; so why settle on crumbs when substantial progress could be made on a more visionary scale? At least there is a half-a-loaf vision well past the Pelosi thing in aim; i.e., a progressive view. neatly progressive and neatly already written in alternative language form. All it takes is a popular will to develop strongly enough to be felt; in as direct a way as needed to constrain room for equivocation as the issue progresses with time.

Ask this: What has Speaker Nancy Pelosi done for progress, lately? Well then, Steny Hoyer? Hand a progressive hat to Steny? Why? When? Take time to think all that out

_______________UPDATE___________
This item suggests offering from the floor of progressive amendment to the Pelosi text will be permitted. It is unclear if much changes beyond that.

Bernie POLICY = ? = You have to watch the video; Iowa Public Television Panelists Interview Bernie, and he answers.

Hat tip to DownWithTyranny for posting which included this embedded video link; cogent, cordial, convincing. Or watch and disagree - opinions can differ.

Bernie POLICY = High-Speed Internet for All - When Bernie is president, every American household will have affordable, high-speed internet by the end of his first term.

That headline takes Bernie's policy page headline. Of interest, this item introduced me to the issue paper's existence. It got coverage in tech internet outlets but might have escaped mainstream attention and/or coverage.

Again, the details proposed by Sanders are online at the Sanders campaign's webpage,

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

at this link.

While The Impeachment was playing in one DC theater, a trade deal was being put out a side door. Etc.

"There is no question of course that this trade agreement is much better than NAFTA," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in announcing the agreement, saying the pact is "infinitely better than what was initially proposed by the administration."

The quote is from Strib carrying an AP feed.

Infinitely? Better? Then why sneak it out while a smokescreen existed?

Good that Nancy gave assurance the deal was better. I no longer need to read, indeed study its deets. Thanks, Madam Speaker. You're a great help, a facilitator. What more to say?

UPDATE:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2019/12/are-democrats-still-party-of-harry.html

FURTHER:
https://www.axios.com/house-vote-drug-prices-week-653402f3-40a5-490b-86d9-9275d8128cd3.html

Politics pays, for the right kind of careerist using politics as a path to comfort and prosperity.

Breitbart reporting.

"The Democratic Party Should Not Be Nominating Republicans-- Not For Anything"

The headline to this post quotes the headline to this other DownWithTyrrany post, which itself ends like this -

click to read, or link and read entire original

It is a good post to contemplate - good for the nation, and more so for the survival future of the Democratic Party as an institution dedicated to democracy for the people, offering representatives to be elected who put the people first, and the plutocrats a distant last in order to reestablish a balance that young and old should welcome. No sack; not with Bernie; not with Liz.

With its singular focus the linked web item does not discuss Mayor Pete, although the headline reaches there, so expect that site to have its Pete thing any day now; in parallel to its Joe thing. Physically a smaller sack, but otherwise we shall see.

_________________UPDATE_______________
Without getting into policy detail, RollingStone publishes a favorable cameo of Mayor Pete. Policy is where Pete and Joe are closer to one another than either is to Bernie or Liz. Clearly Pete offers more than Biden.

The Guardian carries an op-ed authored by Jill Stein.

Link. In part:

Confronting the real reasons for Clinton’s loss would open a much-needed conversation about why the Democratic establishment opposes progressive policies that are broadly popular - such as Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, free public higher education, and other programs to improve working people’s lives. They would have to reckon with the unpopularity of their disastrous foreign policy of global military domination. These discussions would threaten not only the mega-donors funding the Democratic party machine, but also the power of the Clinton-Obama neoliberals who made their careers serving those donors.

So instead the Clintonites blame their defeat on Russia and smear their opponents as “Russian assets”. This is classic McCarthyism, recalling a shameful period of paranoid hysteria and political repression.

Unlike Ms. Clinton, Stein will say such things because she's a sore loser.

Sure. One awaits the headline, "Clinton implies that throughout the 2016 campaign Putin acted largely as if a 'Russian Asset.'"

Once she runs out of other blame-names, it's coming.

More about the gutless kicking of the Patriot Act can down the road at least to next March, altering its Dec. 15, 2019, expiration date.

John Whitehead, Rutherford Institute, writing. Bipartisanship against the people. That abomination should have been allowed to reach its drop-dead date without any extension for any cause, by anyone.

The little small town mayor from McKinsey: What did he do there and when did he do it for whom?

N.Y. Times noting the big resume blacked-out part of a lifetime; see, here and here. The second link is an editorial board op-ed, saying disclose or else people might rightly infer disclosure of the McKinsey payroll activities would be unfavorable to the Mayor's candidacy.

"Trust me," from a person as glib as the mayor just seems to ring a tad untrue. For all we know during his time at McKinsey the mayor might have been a "Russian asset." Where's Hillary to define such things when she's needed? What has she to say about that?

Perhaps she likes the mayor, and only throws the "Russian asset" line at those she wants to undermine, to smear, as if they, not her, were responsible for her losing. To Trump! Not just a regular loss, but colossal. Her and Podesta. Genius level. And Bill and the Foundation. Comey. Russian assets, each and every? At any rate, back to the McKinsey mayor. Who, what, where, when, why and how seem to be McKinsey related questions - and Pete, we're still waiting.

One might wonder why the mayor's several billionaire campaign contributors are not asking.

Maybe at McKinsey he worked for them. Or one of them. He was there a while. Doing something.

U.S. media are "on strike" on reporting French disaffection among the people, for France's government and how it operates. This is beyond the yellow vest protests, which coincidentally also were underreported stateside.

ZeroHedge, here and here, there is a general strike going on in France, a big time event, and no media here seems set to say boo about it. As if owners of U.S. media, a handful of concentrated corporate owner-operators making up the bulk of our media outlet ownership; with those big-buck owners not wanting any suggestion of "general strike" reaching our shores. Why might that be?

And yes, if you were to specifically search the web [france general strike] you would get hits, but just getting up with the local online daily and a morning coffee, what would you know about worker-citizen unrest in another highly developed nation wrestling with income inequality unfairness, as we do, but with that other nation having more attitude. Of course given how brutally and universally the militarized cops around the U.S. put down the Occupy movement, there is more at play than the mere media freeze-out of actual European news.

We appear to have more docile and/or deluded and misled citizens than Paris. Not good, except for the plutocrats who'd rather the notion of a general strike never be accorded any attention, in their world.

UPDATE: Guardian, here, here and here cover the French unrest with their government. In addition, this link. That is a British news outlet. One might guess U.S. outlets do not want our hoi polloi getting ideas, were they to have a sniff of what others do when faced abroad by an unresponsive government run by moneyed globalization-at-all-costs-under-interlocking-corporists-elites, (much like the kind we now suffer here).

Don't go riling up the livestock seems a U.S. press collective concern. Reaching from FOX to Bloomberg, there is little interest in reporting French unrest. Go figure.

Warren takes highly critical position against the electoral college. It is overtime for that anachronism to be eliminated, the problem being it is Constitutional, i.e., needing amendement to reform the damned thing.

ZeroHedge, Dec. 3:

Warren: I'll Be The "Last American President Elected By Electoral College"
by Tyler Durden

Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted a short clip of her speaking at a townhall event over the weekend, indicating that she would eliminate the Electoral College and allow the popular vote to choose the president in 2024, basically implying a massive overhaul of the US Consitution would be coming if she became president, [...]

Warren told dozens of people at an Iowa town hall event that she is ready to "get rid of" the Electoral College and replace it with a popular vote.

"I just think this is how a democracy should work," she told the townhall. "Call me old-fashioned, but I think the person who gets the most votes should win."

"Everyone's vote should count equally — in every election — no matter where they live.

But right now, presidential candidates don't even go to places like Mississippi, where I was last night, because it's a deep red state. They also don't go to deep blue states like California or Massachusetts because they're not presidential battlegrounds.

I believe presidential candidates should have to ask every American in every part of the country for their vote, not just a few random states that happen to be close," Warren's website said further.

The opinion Warren expressed is shared by many. In High School civics class it was puzzling to learn how the electoral college operated, the reaction being, "Why did they horse around with that to placate small states then existing? Now Wyominng's two electors, one for each senator, be identical to California's one for each of its senators; Wyoming is just a damned lesser state and should not be disproportionately represented." The point is that now with popular vote irrelevant highly red or highly blue states get little attention while the battleground state residents get five tons of bothersome nuisance political advertising. It will be Bloomberg this year not even campaigning, just buying advertisements and sitting home. That is not campaigning, instead it is attempting to buy an election via propaganda. It sucks.

So, how else can the silly electoral college set-up be dumped, given its gross unfairness? Give Warren credit along with any other candidate wanting to undo the electoral college, for seeking a more democratic way to operate.

ZeroHedge: Latest info on Hunter Biden being sued in paternity case.

A 12/4/19 item stating in part:

Hunter Biden's Lawyer Abruptly Quits After 'Father-Of-The-Year' Blows Off Child Support Hearing

Hunter Biden's lawyer abruptly quit on Monday after the former Vice President's son and Ukraine energy expert failed to show up for a child support hearing regarding his out-of-wedlock child with a D.C. stripper from Arkansas.

According to the Daily Mail, lawyer Dustin McDaniel - the former Attorney General for Arkansas, filed a motion to withdraw after he says Biden's personal lawyer 'advised' him that he was being discharged.

"(C)ounsel will take all steps reasonably practical to protect defendant's interests and make every effort to ensure an efficient and judicious transition for new counsel," wrote McDaniel.

Lunden Roberts, 28, is suing Biden for $11,000 in legal fees, plus child support payments after a DNA test revealed he was the father. Biden, meanwhile, says he's broke an has requested that the judge seal his financial records due to "significant debts" despite having been paid vast sums of money while sitting on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

Hunter was ordered by Judge Don McSpadden to provide at least three years of tax returns before he could reach a decision on monetary support for the child, whose name and gender have not been revealed. Biden has requested that his financial records be sealed to avoid public 'embarrassment' over claims of 'significant debts,' according to the Mail.

[link in oritinal]. Hunter Biden does not appear to be a quality kind of guy you'd want your daughter dating.

______________UPDATE____________
UPDATE: ZeroHedge link, omitted above in error. Second source.

I don't know Sharper Image. Never shopped there. Don't even know its location. I wouldn't know an Angus from a water buffalo. I'm a vegan.

Don't know Prince Andrew? That debunked claim inspired the headline, along with this:

click image to enlarge and read

Interestingly, Devin Nunes has a similar blank-out about Lev Parnas. But cut some slack, it is not as if Parnas is anybody's aristocracy. A Prince, you'd remember.

Money befriends the friends of money. Big, Big money, ditto. Can you pronounce Mayor Pete's last name?

Tony Newmyer writing for WaPo, Nov.6:

The mayor of South Bend, Ind., the fourth-largest city in the 17th-largest state may be an unlikely candidate for Wall Street largesse. But Buttigieg leads his rivals in collecting contributions from the securities and investment industry, pulling in $935,000 through the first three quarters of this year, according to figures from the Center for Responsive Politics.

[...] For those inclined to criticize Buttigieg’s support from Wall Street, campaign spokesman Chris Meagher noted [...] "Pete will do what is right for our country, and is running to move our country forward by leading with bold ideas that the American people can unify around.”

“He is proud to have support from more than 600,000 people who have given everything from a couple of dollars online to the maximum contribution to his campaign,” Meagher said in an email. “And he will use those resources to beat Donald Trump in November 2020.” Buttigieg has defended his practice of attending high-dollar fundraisers on Wall Street and beyond by saying his campaign is "trying to reach everybody at every level.”

[...] Buttigieg’s list of donors reads in part like a who’s who of Wall Street heavy hitters. It includes: William Ackman, billionaire founder of Pershing Square Capital; Roger C. Altman, a former deputy treasury secretary and founder and senior chairman of the investment banking firm Evercore; Richard M. Cashin, founder of private equity firm One Equity Partners; Jonathan Gray, the billionaire president of Blackstone Group; billionaire hedge fund manager Marc Lasry, CEO of Avenue Capital Group; billionaire investor Daniel Ziff; Allen & Company investment banker Stanley S. Shuman; and Robert Wolf, a Wall Street fundraiser for Obama and founder of investment advisory firm 32 Advisors.

Warren has proposed a slate of legal and regulatory changes that threaten major financiers. She has called for breaking up the big banks; fundamentally remaking the private equity industry; and imposing a 2 percent wealth tax on households with more than $50 million, and a 6 percent tax on wealth above a billion dollars.

Buttigieg’s plans are fuzzier. Under a section on his campaign site labeled “Consumer Protections,” he calls for overhauling federal arbitration law to allow consumers to sue credit card companies in court; passing “strict regulations on predatory lenders;” and reviving the enforcement authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, among others.

Trust "everybody at every level" Pete. At every level. You will not be disappointed with Pete anymore than with Biden. If you're worth enough, Pete will notice. Pete notices $935,000, and is the kind of everywhere and every level guy who'd take notice if it were from Wall Street, Indiana, instead of Wall Street, Big Apple. But Big Apple Wall Street is where big donors congregate (with Pete).

A question - who is running South Bend these days with its mayor busy dancing on a national stage? Who decides to shut down the zoo for the winter, with Mayor Pete on the road all the time?

_________________________________
Little known fact: There is a Wall St. in South Bend, Indiana. It bisects Potawatomi Park. Few billionaires reside or work there to bolster Pete. Really - a Wall Street in Pete's town. No Bull.

This might surprise some readers: There are organizations aiming to shape opinion in ways contrary to what's best for regular citizens; and, get this, they are doing it for MONEY. Can you believe ...

Really. And they gravitate to politics and politicians, lobbyists, and dirtbags in general. Flocking together. And - this may be a hard reality - these kinds seem to congregate to Washington, DC. For some obscure reason we could waste time guessing about.

click to read

While doubting minds might seize upon a detail or two to explain away this explanation of healthcare policy deadlock or this further explanation, accepting minds might think, "If only Bernie ... ". The truth is that even Bernie as President would be a force such people might need to reckon with, Bernie as President will not by magic make such hangers-on go away, nor would it even quell their selling of services. Indeed it might boost such effort, for wrong reasons, but for strong ones. So, let's give Bernie as President a good eight year try, and see how much it helps.

If every story has to have a "moral" or a theme to it, citizens should know and despise - and remember - their enemies is a theme that fits. Remember this benignly titled operation which is the subject of this post, with its aims dead set and contrary to our best well being.

If Bernie is elected in hope of attaining single payer [a/k/a decent] national health policy, who knows, there could be a collateral benefit.

2016: Bernie would have won.

Given the universally poor quality of political ads, may the billionaires' excess stage a turnaround and bite them.

Two thirds of present political advertising [television adverts for those who still watch television] are from billionaires, per Guardian.

Most of that stuff is hatefully awful, but candidates buy, and consultants count their payouts. A quick early-in-the-item Guardian excerpt:

Bernie Sanders said: “I’m disgusted by the idea that Michael Bloomberg or any other billionaire thinks they can circumvent the political process and spend tens of millions of dollars to buy our elections.”

Elizabeth Warren similarly derided Bloomberg’s shortcut approach.

She said: “His view is that he doesn’t need people who knock on doors. He doesn’t need to go out and campaign, people. He doesn’t need volunteers. And if you get out and knock on 1,000 doors he’ll just spend another $37m to flood the airwaves and that’s how he plans to buy a nomination in the Democratic party. I think that is fundamentally wrong.”

One of the Bloomberg ads, titled “Promise”, explains: “Mike is running for president to beat Trump and have the wealthy pay their fair share to build an economy that works for everyone.”

If Mike does win, and does meet that promise, many might be surprised - by the win, and by the promise kept, given how it comes from a lightly taxed billionaire.

Either of the billionaires ... in my opinion.

In terms of the two billionaires running presently for President on the Dem Party side, Srteyer and Bloomberg, the feeling here is that either would be a superior choice to party hack Joe Biden. Neither billionaire would have a financial incentive to get into potential family-centric bribery situations, and that is a plus. Neither billionaire is responsible for the bankruptcy bill Warren has criticized Biden for cramming down the nation's throat. Bloomberg as mayor was not a hack. Biden as VP had son Hunter Biden in Ukraine when he was there as the Obama administration's foreign policy rep. Steyer has had no experience to speak of in government management, making him the functional equivalent of Mayor Pete, without the secret McKinsey backgrouned. Biden is experienced, and not in a necessarily good way. Biden knows Senate norms and values. The belief here is that is a negative relative to the billionaires; even with having to admit Bernie and Liz know the Senate too. Just differently from how Biden knows things. Biden has built a fortune as a career politician. That is not said in praise. As fact, but not as praise.

So, billionaires considered a better choice than a "seasoned" Senator or a small town mayor; and ignoring other Senators still contesting from single digit popularity positions, i.e., Harris, Booker and Klobuchar.

Indeed, Booker and Klobuchar are viewed here as more desirable bets, in comparison to Joe Biden. Biden is the one as experienced as Ms. Clinton was last cycle. As appealing too. Experience in the swamp is not necessarily a positive attribute, except for swamp denizens themselves; a lot we may not want to advance with appealing alternatives, Bernie and Liz. Or even the billionaires.

____________UPDATE_____________
While Bloomberg has critics such as when The Intercept publishes, Biden nonetheless is positioned to represent the same part of Democratic politics into which Bloomberg fits. The simple truth, however, is that Bloomberg for all criticism he may deserve, has no Hunter Biden type of cross to bear. He is free from that aspect of shabbiness, appearing, by comparison, more virtuous than the family he is challenging in the race of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Bloomberg is more likeable? Yes, at least as opinioin here exists, today, on the eve of Bloomberg's candidacy.

Trump's EPA: "The proposal, issued by the EPA this fall, is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to roll back the reach of the Clean Water Act and speed up the approval of federal water-quality permits. The rule change targets Section 401 of the law, which has granted broad authority to states and tribes over the last 48 years to make sure any federally approved project meets local water-quality laws."

The headline is from the middle of Strib's "Minnesota says new federal pollution rules would 'kneecap' water protections -- Minnesota regulators say proposal would trample their enforcement rights." By Greg Stanley, Star Tribune - November 23, 2019 — 6:34pm.

The proposed changes are “akin to tearing up Section 401 and throwing it in the trash,” wrote Katrina Kessler, assistant commissioner for water policy and agriculture at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The changes will “directly harm state and tribal water quality,” Kessler wrote.

Local authorities have also raised concerns over a strict deadline the new rules would impose. From the date a developer proposes a new project, state regulators would have exactly one year to approve it, deny it or impose conditions. No extensions would be allowed, even if developers leave proposals incomplete or fail to respond to requests for information, leaving Minnesota officials worried that developers could simply run out the clock with delays.

Minnesota’s business community, however, welcomes the changes, [...]

Given how MPCA was negligently pliant, if not willfully disposed to bend PolyMet environmentally dangerous proposed mining effluent requiremenhts in a way that declined to police tightly heavy metal and other discharges, MPCA seems not to be the agency claiming ability to do things better. That said, DNR and not MPCA appears to be the lead agency on the Twin Metals EIS review, so let's see how one State agency might show better public responsibility than another. If the TRumpians had their way, his henchpersons would call all the shots and States with sterner requirements would be sidetracked into a powerless cringe, as the Trumpians lay waste to our lands. That worry seems a sound reason to want overlapping jurisdiction with any proposed conduct of business held to meet the stricter of regulatory regimens, State or federal. That seems best, where mistake cannot be undone as with sulfide mining being permitted to happen or being forestalled at least until another day, but not now, in anything like a half-assed fashion, as was to be the sloppy situation with PolyMet before PolyMet's fan loaded up via citizen activism and judicial wisdom.

There is a lesson in all of that, and discerning the lesson is not difficult. Let Minnesota protect Minnesota being the idea, with a federal oversight at play too, so that the stricter of constraints would govern. There is nothing wrong with that. Dual authority, business constrained to conform to whatever environmental protections are most truly protective, is the only policy making sense.

Washington Examiner: The decision, announced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is “the latest in the Trump administration's consistent and considerable support” for Israel, said Pastor John Hagee, founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel. The organization boasts more than 7 million members and is the largest pro-Israel group in the United States.

Link. The headline above is a mid-item paragraph, with the full item titled by WE headlining, "Trump evangelical base 'thrilled' by determination that West Bank settlements are not illegal, (by Katherine Doyle - November 20, 2019 06:00 PM).

Hegseth seems to stay within Trump's loyal inner circle existing outside of those employed in government service. He gets featured attention at left.mn

Link.

Try this. Google = nunes shokin parnas Then filter the returned list for “NEWS” or by time/recency. Apparently Vicky Ward at CNN broke the story. It is Parnas speaking through counsel, Parnas wanting Fifth Amendment concessions [immunity] before willingly testifying per such offer of proof. There may be documents? That would be Nunes wanting to dig dirt on Biden, dating back to then – but under the same claim as Trump of soliciting foreign interference in U.S. elections.

Try it. Vicky Ward - CNN link. DailyBeast. Then detailed and lengthy, DownWithTyranny, ending:

UPDATE: Nunes Says He's Suing

The Central Valley crackpot says he's suing CNN and the Daily Beast. Nunes to right-wing media site Breitbart: "These demonstrably false and scandalous stories published by the Daily Beast and CNN are the perfect example of defamation and reckless disregard for the truth. Some political operative offered these fake stories to at least five different media outlets before finding someone irresponsible enough to publish them. I look forward to prosecuting these cases, including the media outlets, as well as the sources of their fake stories, to the fullest extent of the law. I intend to hold the Daily Beast and CNN accountable for their actions. They will find themselves in court soon after Thanksgiving." I wonder if they get to sit next to @DevinCow, who Nunes is also supposedly suing.

Yes, Nunes says he will sue. SAYS. So -- Popcorn time, but is this an ongoing smokescreen with what other news happening at this time, but getting less attention? Always wonder that. BOTTOM LINE: Always!

FURTHER: Breitbart.

Strib, carrying an AP feed about Michael Bloomberg's billionaire ego trip; Bloomberg suggesting he'd be better for the people than Bernie. [UPDATED]

From the tediously long item indicating a formal Bloomberg declaration of candidacy to the press:

“I’m running for president to defeat Donald Trump and rebuild America,” Bloomberg wrote.

“We cannot afford four more years of President Trump’s reckless and unethical actions,” he continued. “He represents an existential threat to our country and our values. If he wins another term in office, we may never recover from the damage.”

If he thought, honestly, that defeating Trump was crucial, he'd have stayed out of the way of ones who could get that job done more easily and with more public trust than one whose fortune grew to billions of dollars out of providing information services to Wall Street wonks.

Speaking of which, wouldn't a candidate differing more from Trump generate a stronger push toward ousting Trump? Warren for example. Bernie. And what would Bloomberg have as a slogan, "Feel the Bloom?"

"Feel the Bern" rings better.

_____________UPDATE_____________
Forbes coverage links to the official campaign website, which has an "about page," but, at present, no "issues page." Running on billions, or what? Running on Empty? Running proud? Would somebody please lead Mr. Biden off the stage now, billionaires are directly into play without surrogate faces. East Coast Bloomberg. West Coast Steyer.

Dueling Banjos.

FURTHER: PBS, text coverage.

Anyone can spin early polling. That said, a link to:BERN NOTICE: 5 Key Poll Numbers That Illustrate the Bernie Surge Here's the data that show exactly how much Bernie is gaining -- and how his rise is being fueled by a working-class coalition.

Link. This is from the Sanders campaign, so do not expect an objective polling survey article. Nor does it say anything about other candidates beyond posting a closing chart of where the Democratic Party can look to recruit and cement a bloc of new members and allies, (were the right candidate to emerge as the Party's Convention choice, a candidate who can ignite passion for CHANGE).

2016? Bernie would have won

Chomsky. Always relevant. This item from last week, Nov. 12, 2019 as its dateline.

No excerpt. Read it.

The Pelosi-Hoyer House and reauthorization of the hated "Patriot Act."

What is going on? The politics of an abomination.

click the screen capture to read it

With all the impeachment smokescreening, the House did it. Or say the Democratic Party leadership and rank and file did it. Commentary exists online, here, here, here, here, and here; while excerpting here will be primarily from New Republic coverage, and Common Dreams [source of the opening screen capture].

New Republic excerpt:

It may seem to many Americans that Washington is entirely consumed by the impeachment inquiry, and that no other important business is getting done on Capitol Hill. But on Tuesday, in a break from televised hearings, the House of Representatives voted to fund the government through December 20. If passed by the Senate, the continuing resolution would prevent a government shutdown and forestall a debate about border-wall funding.

That’s all well and good, except that Democratic leaders had slipped something else into the bill: a three-month extension of the Patriot Act, the post-9/11 law that gave the federal government sweeping surveillance and search powers and circumvented traditional law-enforcement rules. Key provisions of the Patriot Act were set to expire on December 15, including Section 215, the legal underpinning of the call detail records program exposed in the very first Edward Snowden leak.

“It’s surreal,” Representative Justin Amash told me on Tuesday, just before the vote. Amash, an independent who left the Republican Party over his opposition to President Trump, pointed to the hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. Republicans have “decried FISA abuse” against the president and his aides, he said, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, “and Democrats have highlighted Trump’s abuse of his executive powers, yet they’re teaming up to extend the administration’s authority to warrantlessly gather data on Americans.”

By tucking the measure into a must-pass bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi forced many members who oppose the Patriot Act to vote in favor of its extension. “Although I do have serious concerns with reauthorizing Section 215,” Representative Bobby Rush of Illinois told The Hill, “we must focus on the bigger picture here.” In late October, Rush signed a letter co-authored by Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Earl Blumenauer, which read, “We will not support any legislation that extends Section 215’s sunset date if it fails to contain robust reforms that protect innocent people from unjust surveillance.”

On Monday night, Amash submitted an amendment to strip the Patriot Act language from the budget bill, but the amendment was blocked by Democrats on the Rules Committee.

Just 10 Democrats defied the leadership to vote against the resolution, including Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and Ilhan Omar (a.k.a. “the Squad”). [...] Ultimately, the funding bill passed 231-192, mostly on party lines.

Some advocates have questioned whether the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), which includes the Squad, should have done more to combat—or, at least, register its dissatisfaction with—the last-minute maneuver by Democratic leadership. On Wednesday morning, leaders of the CPC and the libertarian House Freedom Caucus circulated a joint letter on Capitol Hill calling for extensive reforms to the Patriot Act before it is reauthorized. But when it came time for the floor vote, CPC co-chairs Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan voted in favor of the funding measure. So did most of the caucus’s members. The only person in CPC leadership to vote against the bill was Omar.

[...] “There’s no other way to spin this,” a progressive staffer on the Hill told me. “This was a major capitulation. The progressive caucus has touted itself as an organization that can wield power and leverage the votes of its 90 members. And they didn’t lift a finger. Democratic leadership rammed this down their throats.”

[...] Jayapal, the CPC co-chair, denied that this was a situation of Democratic leadership bearing down on progressives. “That happens pretty often,” she said, laughing. “So I actually know what that feels like. This wasn’t one of them.”

According to Jayapal, negotiations between members of the Judiciary Committee and the NSA-friendly House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence (HPSCI) were going well. “Almost every single thing in our letter has been addressed, but not quite to our level of satisfaction,” Jayapal said. “We’re still pushing really hard, and we need this extra time to be able to finish that.” Without HPSCI’s buy-in, she said, “there’s no point in marking up a bill … because that is often where we run into problems.”

[...] If the House had not passed the extension, she said, the GOP-led Senate would have sent over a clean reauthorization bill (with no reforms), and she worries moderate Democrats might have gone along with it—especially if faced with the alternative of allowing the provisions to expire altogether. “You could go through and name any strategy for me, and I would tell you why it would fail,” she said.

As for allowing the Patriot Act to sunset, Jayapal told me, “There was no scenario in which this thing was going to expire.” Eighteen years after 9/11, raising the specter of “the next attack” still has political potency. “We already heard that from the Senate,” Jayapal said.

These views represent competing visions for how progressives should wield power in Congress. Jayapal’s pragmatic streak has often contrasted with the more openly confrontational approach of Ocasio-Cortez or Tlaib. While members of the Squad have seemed to relish fights with top Democrats, Jayapal has advocated for sticking to principles, while finding ways to work collaboratively with leadership.

“In my ideal world, we wouldn’t have the Patriot Act. Period,” Jayapal said, “but that’s not where we are.

That extended quote captures most of the report. The Common Dreams item parallels New Republic, in less detail, and aside from the opening paragraphs in the screen capture, it will not be quoted here.

BOTTOM LINE: The reauthorization measure is aimed to avoid a holiday government shutdown, and allows at a later time the opportunity to trim or quell offensive Patriot Act provisions. The action was to include it in a temporary funding package to avoid confrontation over spending extension authorization if proposed without kicking the Patriot Act abomination can down the road, for tomorrow or the day after. While the damned surveillance of citizens provisions should never have been passed, the time to refight over such crap will be after the holidays, during the primary season and the ramp up to November.

Whether that was the wisest thing to do now, or not, is moot now because the choice to kick the can down the road has been made by the House, with the Senate now forced to consider and do something, or to be responsible for a shutdown and its costs if the Senate does nothing.

Politics sometimes carries a miasma. Even when done in relative stealth. And you thought the impeachment show was the only show in town ... The old shell game. The pea is always under a different shell than you thought you saw it end up. Pelosi leadership, with Hoyer, the pair shown in the screen capture; as great as they are (perhaps a much smaller image was due).

Note that links in either featured article are omitted; e.g., New Republic links to a pdf of the continuing resolution bill which the House passed. (For following several links, seek out the original online items; however, you can read the actual resolution text online, in pdf form, here; at p.25 of 26 pages; SEC. 1703. SUNSETS.)

Two essays that offer little encouragement for populist progressives wanting a better Democratic Party than the Party elders seem inclined to yield.

Suggested reading order, here and then here.

UPDATE: One related item. Neither of the three items says the donor base and the populace held then different ideas of what the Obama presidency was to be; the donors winning. Our Revolution and Bernie's ability to raise cash via small contributions from a large support base must really piss off the deep wallets used to calling the shots for the two parties, less clearly for the Democrats, yet the promoting of a Joe Biden, faults such as Hunter Biden included, and the media freeze in covering the popular support Bernie commands both show that the donor group took over and killed the grassroots opportunity CHANGE and HOPE had fed.

It was using grassroot hope, then compromising HOPE for no good reason. It was short-sighted. It was conscious choice to try to fold grassroots into the inner party control mechanism as a taken for granted part of the electorate willing to play lesser evil. It allowed DNC to offer evil, while contending, "lesser,lesser, lesser." This cycle offers a chance to forestall an evil, any and all evil, in exchange for a felt Bern. You can feel that Bern free of evil of any kind and focused on what is best for the nation and its people. Irrespective of serving billionaires first, others wait outside, there is an alternative, Bernie apart from the inner party, or even Warren begrudgingly accepted by the deep wallets - as a sane alterntive to four more years of Trump and his party retaining the spoils of winning an election.

Killing off the Obama grassroots support after the election was won surely did not anger any billionaire, but now we have Trump. And the billionaires.

And Bernie.

Warren is the next best choice, but is next best good enough when you've got the real thing? One hundred percent, no compromise lurking in the background on Bernie's part just resonates better than Warren, or at least that is the perception feeling here. However, Warren, if the convention's nominee, is foreseen to be elected and serve as a fine progressive head of state - a likelihood in terms of head-to-head pairings (in present early polling, Warren polls significantly higher than Trump).

Sondlund testified under oath that everyone was in the loop; i.e., it was known among top adminstration players that quid pro quo was what Trump demanded. Sondland testified that Pence knew.

Strib carrying an AP feed:

November 20, 2019 — 8:33am

WASHINGTON — Ambassador Gordon Sondland told House impeachment investigators Wednesday that Rudy Giuliani was pushing a “quid pro quo” with Ukraine that he had to go along with it because it’s what President Donald Trump wanted.

“Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president,” Sondland testified.

[Sondland said]

[,,,] Trump told him and other diplomats working on Ukraine issues “talk with Rudy” on those matters. “So we followed the president’s orders.”

[...] he spoke with Trump on a cellphone from a busy Kyiv restaurant the day after the president prodded Ukraine’s leader to investigate political rival Joe Biden.

[...] he kept Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other top administration officials aware of what was going on.

[...] he specifically told Vice President Mike Pence he “had concerns” that U.S. military aid to Ukraine “had become tied” to the investigations.

“Everyone was in the loop,” Sondland testified in opening remarks. “It was no secret.”

[...] He has told lawmakers the White House has records of the July 26 call, despite the fact that Trump has said he doesn’t recall the conversation.

The ambassador’s account of the recently revealed call supports the testimony of multiple witnesses who have spoken to impeachment investigators over the past week.

Sondland recalls the phone conversation and says it is documented. All Trump says is he cannot recall it happening, not that it did not happen. It is clear that quid pro quo was the requirement, and the players all maerched to that tune.

Pence. Pompeo.

What about Barr? Was Barr in the loop? Barr not knowing what Rudy was going about doing seems, at best, grossly negligent. More likely, he knew and did what he could to aim at plausible deniability. But Pence. He was part of what Trump faces as potential grounds for removal from office. It the shoe fits Trump, then by Sondlund's testimony, it fits Pence; who stands now as Trump's possible successor.

What did Pence know, and when did he know it?

"Joe Biden is still questioning if marijuana is a gateway drug, even though research doesn't support the idea" - by Ellen Cranley - BusinessInsider - 2019-11-17

BI's item, here. ZeroHedge, here, (image included). Ainslinger. Put that on your record player and get the youth informed about the pernicious "Gateway" Ainslinger learned to detest.

UPDATE: Pew Research polling shows Biden's viewpoint on Cannabis is distinctly in a minority.

Deval Patrick and Michael Bloomberg belong where Beto is. On the sidelines looking in. Ditto, Booker, Klobuchar and Harris.

Narrow the field to the real candidates. The massive number of remaining single-digit polling folks should move on to more productive endeavor.

I.e., get out of Bernie's way. Then there is Mayor Pete and the Ukraine question man with his son, Hunter the Gatherer. Both of those candidates are expendable, from the perspective of the peoples' needs and desires. They only resonate with the fat wallet Republican wing of the Democratic Party, and should be sent packing, home, to whatever Joe does, paid speeches or such, and then back to being a small town mayor for Pete.

The contest is Bernie and Warren, one being the candidate to move on to unseating Trump. But clean up the "debate" act by having fewer participants and holding real debates with issue orientation. The single minute soundbite format is entertainment. Not much else. An oral version of Twitter, as to depth of ideas.

Beto and Kirsten had good sense, Gillibrand earlier than Beto. Leaving from where they did not belong.

And, Amy from Minnesota. Be happy as a Senator. It's your level and you get easily reelected.

Obama speaks in DC to party donor insiders. Like Bernie in 2016, Obama was a clear better 2008 alternative to Ms. Clinton. However, in office he did sell us out to big Pharma and big Insurance to get warmed-over Romneycare passed nationwide. Now Obama counsels, go slow about the status quo. The audience, big money donors acting in concert, may have liked what they heard... [UPDATED]

On Nov. 15, NY Times published online, "Obama Says Average American Doesn’t Want to ‘Tear Down System’[subheadlined] Former President Barack Obama, in an address to liberal donors, warned candidates not to go too far left and sought to calm those who were concerned about the state of the Democratic primary." That subheadline "warned candidates" language might stretch things into editorializing. The item stated in part,

Acknowledging that candidates must “push past” his achievements, Mr. Obama urged his party’s candidates not to push too far, as he urged them to adopt a message that would allow them to compete in all corners of the country.

“I don’t think we should be deluded into thinking that the resistance to certain approaches to things is simply because voters haven’t heard a bold enough proposal and if they hear something as bold as possible then immediately that’s going to activate them,” he said.

The fact that Mr. Obama offered his reassurances at the annual meeting of the Democracy Alliance, a club of wealthy liberals who donate hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to recommended political organizations, only underscored the intended audience of his message. In recent weeks, establishment-aligned Democrats, top donors and some strategists have expressed fears that the party lacks a strong enough candidate to defeat President Trump.

[italics added] Tom Perez could not have said it better. (Who knows, Tom Perez may have written the speech.)

On Nov. 16, NY Times published online a follow-up, "Too Far Left? Some Democratic Candidates Don’t Buy Obama’s Argument [subheadlined] One day after former President Barack Obama cautioned against being out of touch with voters, Democratic candidates said there was a winner among them." That item stated in part:

During a televised forum sponsored by Univision, Jorge Ramos, an anchor for the Spanish-language station, asked Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont if Mr. Obama was right in saying that “the average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system.”

Mr. Sanders chuckled briefly and responded, “Well, it depends on what you mean by tear down the system.”

“The agenda that we have is an agenda supported by the vast majority of working people,” he said. “When I talk about raising the minimum wage to a living wage, I’m not tearing down the system. We’re fighting for justice. When I talk about health care being a human right and ending the embarrassment of America being the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care for every man, woman and child, that’s not tearing down the system. That’s doing what we should have done 30 years ago.”

Julián Castro, who served as the housing secretary under Mr. Obama and has embraced some of the most left-leaning policies during the primary, said [...] “I don’t think that anybody in this campaign has articulated a vision for the future of the country that would not command a majority of voters in November of 2020,”[...] “Their vision for the future of the country is much better and will be more popular than Donald Trump’s.”

[...] Among the liberal wing of the party, Mr. Obama’s remarks prompted fierce backlash online and the creation of the hashtag #TooFarLeft by Peter Daou, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton.

[italics added; re that hashtag traffic, see, e.g., CommonDreams, here]. Adding to some of the thinking, Obama's record as viewed here hinged on HOPE and CHANGE being slogans, not promises.

______________UPDATE______________
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/12/warren-obama-2020-228068



__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Last, there is the "who'dat" -- "The Democracy Alliance" is the inner party Dem big-money donor club Obama was addressing when saying don't tear down our edifices; Wikipedia:

The Democracy Alliance [...] has been described by Politico as "the country's most powerful liberal donor club."[5]

Members of the Democracy Alliance are required to contribute at least $200,000 a year to groups the Democracy Alliance vets and recommends. As of 2014, the Alliance had helped distribute approximately $500 million to liberal organizations since its founding in 2005. Members of the Democracy Alliance include billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer.[6]

[...] According to the Democracy Alliance's website, the group "was created to build progressive infrastructure that could help counter the well-funded and sophisticated conservative apparatus in the areas of civic engagement, leadership, media, and ideas."[7]

[...] In 2012, the Democracy Alliance ceased funding a number of prominent progressive organizations. According to the Huffington Post, "The groups dropped by the Democracy Alliance tend to be those that work outside the [Democratic] party's structure." This move cost the Democracy Alliance the support of Soros ally Peter B. Lewis, the billionaire founder of Progressive Auto Insurance.[14]

According to the Huffington Post, the Democracy Alliance "is largely divided into two camps: one that prefers to focus on electing Democrats to office, and another that argues for more attention to movement and progressive infrastructure building in order to create a power center independent of the Democratic Party apparatus."[15]

[...] Under its latest strategy, the Democracy Alliance will divide its funding streams into four categories. There are 35 groups funded in these categories. This is the old STRATEGY, and in 2017 the issue of Latino and maginilized communities was addressed in the Alliances New American Majority Fund, with specific investments in Latino engagement and African American electoral funding.

As of 2015, the Democracy Alliance, which does not disclose its membership, is reported to have about 110 partners who are required to contribute at least $200,000 a year to groups it vets and recommends. Members include Tom Steyer and some of the U.S.'s biggest labor unions.[10] It has recommended that its donors financially support the Black Lives Matter movement.[17]

[links and footnotes omitted] The Democracy Alliance has its website
https://democracyalliance.org/

and describes itself:

For nearly 15 years, the Democracy Alliance has helped to raise significant resources to promote progressive ideas, impact media coverage, develop new leadership, create sophisticated civic engagement strategies, and engage young people and communities of color. In our collaborative giving strategy, an informed and engaged body of donors comes together to aggregate resources for focused investment, for which we have marshaled as much as $80 million per year.

Our collective giving is grounded in a shared set of values, namely that we work to build and support a fair democracy, an inclusive economy, a safe and sustainable planet, and an equitable and just nation.

At a time when nearly every democratic institution of our country and collective values as a nation are under attack by an administration fueled by negligence, false truths, and ego, the need for a more powerful and cohesive progressive community has never been greater.

As a donor group with a two hundred grand annual buy-in, it is high rollers only. It is more radical in self description than other wealth-centered political contribution apparatus; but with 2020 looming, for now, who do they love? Are they a part of some Bernie blacklist? Will they partner with the bloc behind the PAC being formed to promote Joe Biden? How autonomous is each member-donor in raining its two hundred grand among the approved other subordinate political outlets - which Wikipedia lists (as does the Alliance website).

Getting the influence of money out of politics likely is not to them their key 2020 issue.

____________FURTHER UPDATE__________
So, a big-buck donor collective audience and a middle of the road past president addressing them, what about the one Bernie quote above, “Well, it depends on what you mean by tear down the system?" What "system" would be "torn down" as opposed to made more just via the Sanders proposed "21st Century Economic Bill of Rights?” Where is there too much radicalism there to justify the Obama view of fair systems being in teardown peril?