Online image. Where? When? Those facts were not online with the image. Still - Mayors Pete and Mike likely envy that talent Bernie shows to pack a house with people who want what Bernie is discussing. All of US is what the campaign is about; while all of THEM are in Bernie Bashing mode. You can judge a man by the opposition he generates. Bless the two short mayors.
NOTE: Moda Center is in Portland, and the "Bernie 2016" sign together give time and place, as being from last cycle. Whenever, it's a DeadHead sized crowd (likely as enthusiastic too). There's been no reporting of Sanders drawing tinier crowds in 2020, so regard the image as representative. And what's Bloomberg offering? Instead of Feel The Bern, it's Feel His Scorn when Mayor Mike talks in public. As if he's a man giving so much by taking the time to talk down to voters.
Friday, February 28, 2020
Bloomberg - self definition by friendships and how he views criminality.
Two under-appreciated short videos. Here and here, The man has a social side, not all business in accruing sixty billion. The videos need more viewing, so have at it. In the second item, I do not know whether some photo content was photoshopped or not, but proud alliances go before the fall.
This does not seem photoshopped:
Nor this.
Quality New York people, schmoozing. You can make it nationwide.
This does not seem photoshopped:
Nor this.
Quality New York people, schmoozing. You can make it nationwide.
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Steve Timmer at left.mn posts again and forcefully against flat-out dumb mining as a major real and political threat to all Minnesotans, all who populate the earth not named Tom Bakk or Walz.
This link. No excerpting. Read it in its entirety. It is truth written to counter bullshit. To counter fourteen years of it.
"'Why would you have a call for the two women to get out when you have two billionaires in the race?' she [Klobuchar] said in a reference to Bloomberg and Steyer. [...] Both Steyer and Bloomberg have the personal fortune to continue well into the contest, although neither has identified a state they say they can win."
Headlining above is from Strib's carrying, "'Why would I get out?': Democrats brush off calls to quit - By SARA BURNETT Associated Press - February 25, 2020 — 12:05am
Career money magnets dis career politicians, and vice versa. Read all about it. Again, this link. Put another way, Bloomberg has the gall to tell those who have run and won some office, to get out of his buck-greased way. What a shit. Yes, he was elected three times as mayor of New York City. Big deal. A New Yorker like Trump. Only shorter, but with as big a chip on his shoulder. Steyer at least makes himself less hate-worthy, by being nondescript. There is no giant cause to dislike Steyer's manners. Real people won't vote for Bloomberg.
Bernie leads going into Super Tuesday. The guess here is Bernie will lead coming out of Super Tuesday. But it's a guess, and we'll have certainty after only a few days. Bloomberg at a guess will not get out even if hammered on Super Tuesday. He can aim to accumulate enough delegates to cause mischief for Bernie and the Democratic Party, with that Party itself being fit by personalities to cause more than enough mischief for Bernie; Clintonista grudges and all.
BOTTOM LINE: What does Bloomberg bring to the table for the 99%? "As much as Mayor Pete" is not much of an answer. Neither presents any cause for regular people to back their elitist personas. Both are smoke and mirror panderers. Both are as status quo as Joe and as AKlo. Let them fight it out.
If forced to back a billionaire or Mayor Pete or AKlo, Steyer seems the least status quo of that bunch.
Biden? Get real. Joe is like handing Trump four more on a silver platter.
Warren is still in the contest and is the second best choice in thinking here, while she also is the best choice among a substantial percentage of progressives. She should stay, as the only sane brokered convention backup choice the damned party has. And as a sensible opportunity for the Party to run a woman and win. Which is faint praise, far less praise than she has earned, over time, praiseworthiness being an area where both Mayor B choices are lacking, based on comparative records.
Career money magnets dis career politicians, and vice versa. Read all about it. Again, this link. Put another way, Bloomberg has the gall to tell those who have run and won some office, to get out of his buck-greased way. What a shit. Yes, he was elected three times as mayor of New York City. Big deal. A New Yorker like Trump. Only shorter, but with as big a chip on his shoulder. Steyer at least makes himself less hate-worthy, by being nondescript. There is no giant cause to dislike Steyer's manners. Real people won't vote for Bloomberg.
Bernie leads going into Super Tuesday. The guess here is Bernie will lead coming out of Super Tuesday. But it's a guess, and we'll have certainty after only a few days. Bloomberg at a guess will not get out even if hammered on Super Tuesday. He can aim to accumulate enough delegates to cause mischief for Bernie and the Democratic Party, with that Party itself being fit by personalities to cause more than enough mischief for Bernie; Clintonista grudges and all.
BOTTOM LINE: What does Bloomberg bring to the table for the 99%? "As much as Mayor Pete" is not much of an answer. Neither presents any cause for regular people to back their elitist personas. Both are smoke and mirror panderers. Both are as status quo as Joe and as AKlo. Let them fight it out.
If forced to back a billionaire or Mayor Pete or AKlo, Steyer seems the least status quo of that bunch.
Biden? Get real. Joe is like handing Trump four more on a silver platter.
Warren is still in the contest and is the second best choice in thinking here, while she also is the best choice among a substantial percentage of progressives. She should stay, as the only sane brokered convention backup choice the damned party has. And as a sensible opportunity for the Party to run a woman and win. Which is faint praise, far less praise than she has earned, over time, praiseworthiness being an area where both Mayor B choices are lacking, based on comparative records.
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
When you discount Chicken Little rhetoric (of which there is plenty), what do knowledgeable people have to say about Single Payer potential in America?
It would save people money. Coverage would be better. More would be covered. See, WaPo, The Lancet, MSN.COM, Yale News, NewsWeek, PLOS, and iflsckence.com.
Truth vs MSNBC, the GOP, the White House, and Mitch saying "Your taxes will go up, scorn, scorn, scorn"? With the web full of conflicting rhetoric, figure what to trust. Also, however, because the future is hard to predict, exercise judgment in what to think and believe. Keep an open mind.
Truth vs MSNBC, the GOP, the White House, and Mitch saying "Your taxes will go up, scorn, scorn, scorn"? With the web full of conflicting rhetoric, figure what to trust. Also, however, because the future is hard to predict, exercise judgment in what to think and believe. Keep an open mind.
Super Tuesday for some, "Money Says - Now's Bloomberg's Chance."
That is what the badging means, isn't it? No matter what color your peacock, Mike's money is green and Chris Matthews is not color blind.
Bernie says AIPAC is biased; AIPAC gets in a snit; Breitbart publishes; so where is truth?
AIPAC will convene March 1-3, 2020, in DC as its latest annual lobbying get-together, to play naked politics without admitting it to be that.
Breitbart, here. Giving quotes, Sanders tweeted:
People living together is not a bad goal, and balance is needed to assure such an outcome.
AIPAC response, per Breitbart:
Let's parse that - outrageous, odious, shameful of Bernie to be in any way critical of what Bernie calls a "platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights," and which AIPAC in desceribing itself calls a,"mainstream, bipartisan American political event." So, where is truth about AIPAC's scrupulous participation in bipartisanship?
While opinions can differ, it sure looks and smells to me going into the AIPAC confab next month like a "platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights." You have to say, Mike Pence is Mike Pence, and having him as featured speaker is not shunning bias. What's it look and smell like to you? In an election year?
Breitbart, here. Giving quotes, Sanders tweeted:
The Israeli people have the right to live in peace and security. So do the Palestinian people. I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. For that reason I will not attend their conference.
As president, I will support the right of both Israelis and Palestinians and do everything possible to bring peace and security to the region.
People living together is not a bad goal, and balance is needed to assure such an outcome.
AIPAC response, per Breitbart:
Senator Sanders has never attended our conference and that is evident from his outrageous comment. In fact, many of his own Senate and House Democratic colleagues and leaders speak from our platform to the over 18,000 Americans from widely diverse backgrounds — Democrats, Republicans, Jews, Christians, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, progressives, Veterans, students, members of the LGBTQ+ community — who participate in the conference to proclaim their support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.
By engaging in such an odious attack on this mainstream, bipartisan American political event, Senator Sanders is insulting his very own colleagues and the millions of Americans who stand with Israel. Truly shameful.
Let's parse that - outrageous, odious, shameful of Bernie to be in any way critical of what Bernie calls a "platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights," and which AIPAC in desceribing itself calls a,"mainstream, bipartisan American political event." So, where is truth about AIPAC's scrupulous participation in bipartisanship?
 |
| Scruples? Bipartisan? Image source: https://event.aipac.org/policyconference |
While opinions can differ, it sure looks and smells to me going into the AIPAC confab next month like a "platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights." You have to say, Mike Pence is Mike Pence, and having him as featured speaker is not shunning bias. What's it look and smell like to you? In an election year?
Monday, February 24, 2020
Getting ready for the Bloomberg putsch, March 3, when the man wanting to hose the elderly will be pitching himself via ads which don't admit he wants to hose the elderly. Go figure.
Bloomberg and Bernie differ in ways the elderly can comprehend and act upon. May they do so in droves. If the question, "What really does Michael Bloomberg offer me," is asked by voters, those not slavish to propaganda influence will say to themselves, "Not one worthwhile fucking thing."
We'll have to wait and see. March 4 will be a day of spin, so be ready for lies and excuses. They will be prevalent. "US" have a job cut out for us, March 3, wherever that Tuesday has been made "Super."
We'll have to wait and see. March 4 will be a day of spin, so be ready for lies and excuses. They will be prevalent. "US" have a job cut out for us, March 3, wherever that Tuesday has been made "Super."
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Of interest, move aside for Mike begets less than love.
The Hill:
The audacity of the upstart. Has not even made his first billion yet, and acting up. Also, that "leader in delegates" term was sprung by Pete's folks before Nevada, clearly so, and talk about swinging on a technicality . . .
Well, should Bernie get an "insurmountable" lead in pledged first-vote delegates, let us hope things convene and unfold without an obsequious, interminable balloon drop. There is room for a learning curve.
In a memo released shortly before the debate, senior Bloomberg advisers laid out the stark delegates math Democrats face if they hope to stop Sanders.
“If Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar remain in the race despite having no path to appreciably collecting delegates on Super Tuesday and beyond, they will propel Sanders to a seemingly insurmountable delegate lead by siphoning votes away from Mike Bloomberg,” Bloomberg campaign advisers Kevin Sheekey and Howard Wolfson wrote this week.
[...] The Buttigieg campaign is calling on Bloomberg to step aside.
"If Bloomberg remains in the race despite showing he can not offer a viable alternative to Bernie Sanders, he will propel Sanders to a seemingly insurmountable delegate lead siphoning votes away from Pete, the current leader in delegates," Buttigieg's campaign wrote.
The audacity of the upstart. Has not even made his first billion yet, and acting up. Also, that "leader in delegates" term was sprung by Pete's folks before Nevada, clearly so, and talk about swinging on a technicality . . .
Well, should Bernie get an "insurmountable" lead in pledged first-vote delegates, let us hope things convene and unfold without an obsequious, interminable balloon drop. There is room for a learning curve.
Dan Burns posts of intending to vote Sanders, on Super Tuesday. DEETS below.
Link. No other 2020 candidates are discussed by Dan other than Warren, Sanders, and Trump. Not that all Warren supporters should do as and think as Dan does; but each should guess at things all the way to the convention and possibly minimizing possoble discord surviving after the convention ends. That is said before the Bloomberg putsch in Super Tuesday states. The expectation is Bloomberg will garner less power than he'd like, and might stall at some point but with a percentage of delegates pledged via primary voting.
By publishing a preference for the first time this cycle, Burns is burning home the timeframe for a landmark level of Minnesota primary election DFL turnout - the more turnout the better - the more new Democrats voting now, the better.
By publishing a preference for the first time this cycle, Burns is burning home the timeframe for a landmark level of Minnesota primary election DFL turnout - the more turnout the better - the more new Democrats voting now, the better.
Jennifer Rubin dislikes Bernie over policy, but falls back on the "Can't win" canard, while Bernie is winning. [UPDATED]
The Bloomberg wallet weight is yet to be felt. Super Tuesday meets that Gotham City situation in a few days, and we will know more.
Meanwhile, Rubin spins out trash on how to screw over Bernie, as if that were some kind of good idea. For a Democratic Party death wish, perhaps screwing Bernie might suffice, but Jen goes beyond good taste and sound judgment in Chicken Little rhetoric. Bezos' paper publishes. Bernie is critical of Amazon. But there is editorial independence, surely there is?
____________UPDATE____________
Sirota, a Bernie backer, provides multiple links to counter Rubin's bald assertions gleaned from navel gazing rather than fact. Rubin, as noted, disagrees on policy but attacks with an electability canard. That is dishonesty, in my book. Bernie is the most electable choice the Democratic Party has; the question being whether inner party comfort is at stake to a degree where entrenched inner party types would prefer a Trump four more to a Bernie winning candidacy where they hold no share and stand to lose punditry status within their Party ranks. They reject their only real chance, besides Warren, that they have of winning. Bloomberg is more a joke than Biden. If they face that truth, they can win - but not by advancing a strutting turkey.
Meanwhile, Rubin spins out trash on how to screw over Bernie, as if that were some kind of good idea. For a Democratic Party death wish, perhaps screwing Bernie might suffice, but Jen goes beyond good taste and sound judgment in Chicken Little rhetoric. Bezos' paper publishes. Bernie is critical of Amazon. But there is editorial independence, surely there is?
____________UPDATE____________
Sirota, a Bernie backer, provides multiple links to counter Rubin's bald assertions gleaned from navel gazing rather than fact. Rubin, as noted, disagrees on policy but attacks with an electability canard. That is dishonesty, in my book. Bernie is the most electable choice the Democratic Party has; the question being whether inner party comfort is at stake to a degree where entrenched inner party types would prefer a Trump four more to a Bernie winning candidacy where they hold no share and stand to lose punditry status within their Party ranks. They reject their only real chance, besides Warren, that they have of winning. Bloomberg is more a joke than Biden. If they face that truth, they can win - but not by advancing a strutting turkey.
The web is full of "Sanders wins Nevada" reporting. From mid-item, Strib carrying an AP feed, "While Sanders' victory in Nevada encouraged his supporters, it only deepened concern among establishment-minded Democratic leaders who fear . . .".
Link. What do they fear?
Strib finishes the particular paragraph:
True enough. The entrenched inner party Tom Perez types want cash flow from spoils. We know that. Hence, I would finish the headlined sentence:
That is what they fear. Their plastic people getting displaced with progressive populists having no stake in perpetuating the bogus status quo. Whatever the established Dempcratic Party DC operatives may say, the people getting fair treatment, and Wall Street getting it too generates fear; fear first over expanding the benefit of government to the people, then fear secondly over a likely general election post-victory squeezing by Sanders and those he empowers of the greedy who've been in the drivers' seats under past presidencies of either party - squeezing them until they bleed out some of their ill-gotten money to finance fairness to everyone else. And that fear is real. Real enough to move Bloomberg to try to buy the whole shooting match for himself and allies. Massive "Stop Bernie" spending speaks eloquently about WHO and FOR WHAT PURPOSE Dempcratic Party "regulars" are conspiring with Republican Michael Bloomberg to keep inequality wholly intact.
That in short is what the regular inner party perps fear. Having their gluttonous share diminished by one single dollar is enough to strike terror into their complacent egotistical hearts. Their hearts and minds cannot grasp "fairness" simply because they have lived so long privileged above fairness that they feel entitlements mean only theirs; nobody else being entitled to anything but table scraps they may or may not choose to leave.
Go Bernie. Win and improve things. Things stand where improvement is easy, given how dastardly the world is being run by bankers and other scurvy characters. Make them feel the Bern. Ideally not by a little, but by a lot. Even clean a little in Hollywood.
____________UPDATE____________
See: OpenSecrets.org's post: "Who is funding the anti-Bernie Sanders super PAC? By Ilma Hasan, February 21, 2020".
That item provides links, whereas commentary based upon the item omits posting links. SPEDIFICALLY, the OpenSecrets.org item links to two other related pages it posts; here and here. So, where really is the news in Bibi disrespects Bernie? A far right Trump-loving crook dislikes a reformer. Wow! News!
Bernie favors fairnes, and that attracks detractors. Detractors who favor the status quo; a/k/a their power, run amok, still, and forever. the truth is it does not have to be their way. Voters in Nevada were awake. Nationwide, let us hope for an equal wakefulness.
FURTHER: Politico's representative report on the Sanders win.
FURTHER; Politico's Playbook for 2/23/2020, lists leading links:
Also, Politico - mid-item:
The Sanders wave, as many outside of mainstream media expected, brought new young blood into the Nevada Democratic Party, much as it will do in the general election. Leading to a Sanders victory holding Trump/Pence to a single term. That is the scenario if the party coalesces behind Bernie; with nobody poisoning the well from within Democratic Party status quo ranks.
FURTHER: Video.
FURTHER: Guardian, here and here.
Strib finishes the particular paragraph:
[..] he is too extreme to defeat Trump. Sanders for decades has been calling for transformative policies to address inequities in politics and the economy, none bigger than his signature "Medicare for All" health care plan that would replace the private insurance system with a government-run universal program.
True enough. The entrenched inner party Tom Perez types want cash flow from spoils. We know that. Hence, I would finish the headlined sentence:
[...] that Sanders will decisively win, without their own claws on things, and that their lobbyist and consultant hangers-on could end up getting no opportunity to loot the spoils of a Sanders victory.
That is what they fear. Their plastic people getting displaced with progressive populists having no stake in perpetuating the bogus status quo. Whatever the established Dempcratic Party DC operatives may say, the people getting fair treatment, and Wall Street getting it too generates fear; fear first over expanding the benefit of government to the people, then fear secondly over a likely general election post-victory squeezing by Sanders and those he empowers of the greedy who've been in the drivers' seats under past presidencies of either party - squeezing them until they bleed out some of their ill-gotten money to finance fairness to everyone else. And that fear is real. Real enough to move Bloomberg to try to buy the whole shooting match for himself and allies. Massive "Stop Bernie" spending speaks eloquently about WHO and FOR WHAT PURPOSE Dempcratic Party "regulars" are conspiring with Republican Michael Bloomberg to keep inequality wholly intact.
That in short is what the regular inner party perps fear. Having their gluttonous share diminished by one single dollar is enough to strike terror into their complacent egotistical hearts. Their hearts and minds cannot grasp "fairness" simply because they have lived so long privileged above fairness that they feel entitlements mean only theirs; nobody else being entitled to anything but table scraps they may or may not choose to leave.
Go Bernie. Win and improve things. Things stand where improvement is easy, given how dastardly the world is being run by bankers and other scurvy characters. Make them feel the Bern. Ideally not by a little, but by a lot. Even clean a little in Hollywood.
 |
| click image to read names |
____________UPDATE____________
See: OpenSecrets.org's post: "Who is funding the anti-Bernie Sanders super PAC? By Ilma Hasan, February 21, 2020".
That item provides links, whereas commentary based upon the item omits posting links. SPEDIFICALLY, the OpenSecrets.org item links to two other related pages it posts; here and here. So, where really is the news in Bibi disrespects Bernie? A far right Trump-loving crook dislikes a reformer. Wow! News!
Bernie favors fairnes, and that attracks detractors. Detractors who favor the status quo; a/k/a their power, run amok, still, and forever. the truth is it does not have to be their way. Voters in Nevada were awake. Nationwide, let us hope for an equal wakefulness.
FURTHER: Politico's representative report on the Sanders win.
FURTHER; Politico's Playbook for 2/23/2020, lists leading links:
NYT: “In show of might, Sanders wins Nevada” … WAPO: “Sanders dominates in Nevada” … LAS VEGAS SUN: “FIRST IN THE WEST” … LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL: “Sanders takes Nevada” … N.Y. POST: “BERNIN’ DOWN THE HOUSE”
Also, Politico - mid-item:
The high number of early votes in Nevada was viewed by Democrats as an encouraging development after turnout fell below expectations in Iowa.
A majority of early voters were first-time caucus-goers, a positive sign for a party seeking evidence of enthusiasm to defeat President Donald Trump. The Nevada Democratic Party said Saturday that more than 10,000 Nevadans registered to vote as Democrats during the four-day early voting period, expanding the party’s registration advantage in the state.
The Sanders wave, as many outside of mainstream media expected, brought new young blood into the Nevada Democratic Party, much as it will do in the general election. Leading to a Sanders victory holding Trump/Pence to a single term. That is the scenario if the party coalesces behind Bernie; with nobody poisoning the well from within Democratic Party status quo ranks.
FURTHER: Video.
FURTHER: Guardian, here and here.
Friday, February 21, 2020
AIPAC is being a major nuisance, and for its own good should stop, draw back, and get decent.
Link. What a bunch of meddlers. They should be ashamed. The linked MinnPost item, with comments, should serve to educate them that ham-handed tactics are inappropriate. AND counterproductive. Surely they have indefensible conduct to defend, making their lives and professional conduct difficult, but perhaps the Israelis should take a long look at themselves and change for the better because their current treatment of Palestinians is brutal and indecent. It is why BDS is needed, unless and until BDS is successful in generating decency in place of the indecency that now prevails in Israeli politics. Get real or go away, is a phrase for them to chew upon. We do not need them complicating our nation's foreign affairs via their unreasonableness in their neighborhood.
Mike wants to screw the elderly. Via austerity. Bernie suggests austerity for billionaires.
Mike is on video saying to protect war spending we should hose old folks and the poor. Bernie thinks differently. Bloomberg is dispassionate about further dispossession of the already oppressed. "Hose 'em more" seems hard, mean and cruel. The Blooomberg way. Worse than Trump? Or merely as bad? Either way, nobody should want to be like Mike. Having the wealth, okay; but the petty meanness that goes with it is intolerable. Why does this king-sized pompous jerk think he is presidential?
A fortune is not enough.
DECENCY TOO IS NEEDED.
A fortune is not enough.
DECENCY TOO IS NEEDED.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
A Bloomberg critique from a Minnesota Trump loyalist contending Elizabeth Warren cleaned Bloomberg's clock.
Gary was kind enough in his post primarily touting Trump, to embed this brief video segment from early in the Nevada debate. Without trying to analyze Republican thinking from this single instance, noting the embedded video via this hat tip is appropriate. Gary also linked here.
I wish Gary had embedded frontrunner footage, but he decides relevance from his perspective much as editorial Crabgrass decisions are centralized here. That a Republican Trump loyalist would look more for Bloomberg faltering than Bernie ascendent seems to suggest that Trump loyalists fear a bigger billionaire more than a democratic socialist; despite the constant GOP song of Nancy Pelosi being a radical left wing socialist, etc., to where they've clearly cheapened a very fine word - as Sanders points out, Denmark is more socialist than the US, and regular people there have a greater level of contentment and prosperity.
At any rate, given Gary's focus, does anyone besides paid Bloomberg staff like anything about Bloomberg? The man is as arrogant as Trump, and hence easy to criticize; see, e.g., Newt, this video, at about the six minute mark, for Newt analyzing Bloomberg. Not that Newt knows much, but he does learn the favored GOP script that Bloomberg's wealth is feared in that camp. What can money buy? Beatles already took love off the table, but what else, besides worry and critique from Gingrich/FOX?
BOTTOM LINE: What will tons and tons of money buy? We shall find that out soon enough. Republicans from Gingrich to Gary Gross locally seem to be on the same wavelength. Trump loyalists do exist and they speak out. Bernie will have a time with them. They fear Bloomberg because he will spend more than they will. And if anyone knows about money buying elections, it's them. (Although in fairness, the Clinton camp outspent Trump in 2016 because she got all that Wall Street propping-up money. And money bought her second place in a two horse race. A fact which might reflect upon Bloomberg and excessive spending on his behalf.)
_____________UPDATE____________
Gary's post seemed correct that Bloomberg's worse showing was by demeanor. He clearly does not take criticism well, his face showed that during the TV session with Warren addressing Bloomberg weaknesses; and Gary noted it. This is not a good trait. Some say Trump surrounds himself with yes men, but Bloomberg? Let's say Warren was insufficiently deferential toward Bloomberg, not the level of deference he expects to command, and such haughtiness is all fault, with no virtue.
____________FURTHER UPDATE__________
"Bloomberg is running from his record;" etc.; VOX, here.
I wish Gary had embedded frontrunner footage, but he decides relevance from his perspective much as editorial Crabgrass decisions are centralized here. That a Republican Trump loyalist would look more for Bloomberg faltering than Bernie ascendent seems to suggest that Trump loyalists fear a bigger billionaire more than a democratic socialist; despite the constant GOP song of Nancy Pelosi being a radical left wing socialist, etc., to where they've clearly cheapened a very fine word - as Sanders points out, Denmark is more socialist than the US, and regular people there have a greater level of contentment and prosperity.
At any rate, given Gary's focus, does anyone besides paid Bloomberg staff like anything about Bloomberg? The man is as arrogant as Trump, and hence easy to criticize; see, e.g., Newt, this video, at about the six minute mark, for Newt analyzing Bloomberg. Not that Newt knows much, but he does learn the favored GOP script that Bloomberg's wealth is feared in that camp. What can money buy? Beatles already took love off the table, but what else, besides worry and critique from Gingrich/FOX?
BOTTOM LINE: What will tons and tons of money buy? We shall find that out soon enough. Republicans from Gingrich to Gary Gross locally seem to be on the same wavelength. Trump loyalists do exist and they speak out. Bernie will have a time with them. They fear Bloomberg because he will spend more than they will. And if anyone knows about money buying elections, it's them. (Although in fairness, the Clinton camp outspent Trump in 2016 because she got all that Wall Street propping-up money. And money bought her second place in a two horse race. A fact which might reflect upon Bloomberg and excessive spending on his behalf.)
_____________UPDATE____________
Gary's post seemed correct that Bloomberg's worse showing was by demeanor. He clearly does not take criticism well, his face showed that during the TV session with Warren addressing Bloomberg weaknesses; and Gary noted it. This is not a good trait. Some say Trump surrounds himself with yes men, but Bloomberg? Let's say Warren was insufficiently deferential toward Bloomberg, not the level of deference he expects to command, and such haughtiness is all fault, with no virtue.
____________FURTHER UPDATE__________
"Bloomberg is running from his record;" etc.; VOX, here.
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Strib, carrying an AP feed: "Bloomberg’s rivals have already indicated they will lean into his explosive comments on race and gender in addition to their charge that he’s using a fortune earned from a career on Wall Street in an effort to buy the presidency. Bloomberg’s rise in national polls has been fueled almost exclusively by an unprecedented national advertising campaign, carefully controlled campaign events and a sprawling national organization that has likely already cost him more than half a billion dollars."
Link. The headline paragraph of the Feb. 19, 2020, AP item immediately precedes this:
It made me recall O'Brien in 1984. His name is his name, but the mind made the association - so far no Winston Smith on the Bloomberg payroll, as it's been reported. Ministry of Rewriting History types may gravitate to political consultancy buck chasing, and that was Winston's bureau.
This post limited its focus to a part of the Strib/AP item. If one were to speculate how this Bernie-Bloomberg press puffery stuff is like the publicity ramp-up to the Ali - Wepner fight - which will end up like Ali, which like Wepner?
Alexandra Rojas, executive director of the Sanders-allied Justice Democrats, called Wednesday Bloomberg’s first “public moment of accountability.”
“It’s going to be a chance to finally bring scrutiny to Bloomberg’s record as a Republican plutocrat,” she said.
Bloomberg's team was working to lower expectations ahead of his performance, suggesting his debate skills are rusty after more than a decade since his last election.
Bloomberg hasn’t been on a debate stage since 2009. His team notes he never faced more than one rival at a time over three elections for New York City mayor.
Despite the challenges, senior adviser Tim O’Brien signaled that Bloomberg welcomed a fight against Sanders, whom the campaign perceives to be the race’s clear front-runner.
“I think you’re going to see us go toe-to-toe with Bernie Sanders on important issues,” O’Brien said in an interview, raising questions about Sanders’ personal wealth, record on criminal justice and gun control.
Sanders welcomed the fight as well.
It made me recall O'Brien in 1984. His name is his name, but the mind made the association - so far no Winston Smith on the Bloomberg payroll, as it's been reported. Ministry of Rewriting History types may gravitate to political consultancy buck chasing, and that was Winston's bureau.
This post limited its focus to a part of the Strib/AP item. If one were to speculate how this Bernie-Bloomberg press puffery stuff is like the publicity ramp-up to the Ali - Wepner fight - which will end up like Ali, which like Wepner?
Bloomberg will participate in the Nevada debate; despite his not being on the ballot.
Seattlel PI carries an AP feed on the 60 billion dollar man. Fitting excerpting:
Anyone who would vote for Bloomberg, this time unlike his last NYC mayor bit, he will call himself a Democrat, not a Republican, which he is, by policy, along with Mayor Pete and Amy, each of whom would be a better choice - Bloomberg v. Biden? A toss-up.
Mendacity shall be its own reward.
Warren's analysis is spot-on and Bloomberg is audacious to even put his name into consideration - as a Democrat. Klobuchar, in that Republican wing of the Democratic Party represents a better choice. She's been honest about herself and her record.
How will Bloomberg spin? That's been answered two paragraphs ago.
UPDATE: I favor Bloomberg over Mayor Pete. He is more seasoned an opportunist, and hence less a worry about how bad he'd be in office if elected. Mayor Pete, perhaps like the last Rhodes Scholar President. Yuk! That awful! Don't risk it. There is the devil you know, all $60 billion of him. Back flips for Wall Street; but Pete would be no different yet with less respect among the Wall Street movers and shakers - who want to be like Mike.
FURTHER: Related links: Juan Cole, here and here re jobs; Common Dreams re Green policy aims; last, here, here and here(the last item likely ghost-written, but note claimed authorship), the last item suggesting the nation make cuts to aid for the poor, by one not so poor:
"Campaign to Fix the Debt" is what the name suggests; a proposal to rend asunder the safety net which the nation badly needs enhanced and not torn up by those sitting on a giant safety net of their own, a/k/a sixty billion. The item shows one candidacy which has a legacy. Enjoy.
On Tuesday, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren offered a preview of one line of attack the billionaire can expect face to face.
“It's a shame Mike Bloomberg can buy his way into the debate," she tweeted, “but at least now primary voters curious about how each candidate will take on Donald Trump can get a live demonstration of how we each take on an egomaniac billionaire.”
Anyone who would vote for Bloomberg, this time unlike his last NYC mayor bit, he will call himself a Democrat, not a Republican, which he is, by policy, along with Mayor Pete and Amy, each of whom would be a better choice - Bloomberg v. Biden? A toss-up.
Mendacity shall be its own reward.
Warren's analysis is spot-on and Bloomberg is audacious to even put his name into consideration - as a Democrat. Klobuchar, in that Republican wing of the Democratic Party represents a better choice. She's been honest about herself and her record.
How will Bloomberg spin? That's been answered two paragraphs ago.
UPDATE: I favor Bloomberg over Mayor Pete. He is more seasoned an opportunist, and hence less a worry about how bad he'd be in office if elected. Mayor Pete, perhaps like the last Rhodes Scholar President. Yuk! That awful! Don't risk it. There is the devil you know, all $60 billion of him. Back flips for Wall Street; but Pete would be no different yet with less respect among the Wall Street movers and shakers - who want to be like Mike.
FURTHER: Related links: Juan Cole, here and here re jobs; Common Dreams re Green policy aims; last, here, here and here(the last item likely ghost-written, but note claimed authorship), the last item suggesting the nation make cuts to aid for the poor, by one not so poor:
To help make the final push as the Dec. 31 [2012] deadline for reaching a deal looms, I have signed on as a co-chair of the Campaign to Fix the Debt, a bipartisan national group committed to achieving a comprehensive debt-reduction agreement.
This week, there have been signs that Congress and the White House are beginning to move toward an agreement that would include modest tax increases and spending cuts, as well as a commitment to enact broader-based tax and entitlement reforms in 2013. While the tax revenue and entitlement cuts being discussed are both less than what I and many others believe are necessary to maximize long-term growth, the specifics of the deal are to some extent less important than the act of getting one.
"Campaign to Fix the Debt" is what the name suggests; a proposal to rend asunder the safety net which the nation badly needs enhanced and not torn up by those sitting on a giant safety net of their own, a/k/a sixty billion. The item shows one candidacy which has a legacy. Enjoy.
Monday, February 17, 2020
Naval gazing - What is Bloomberg up to?
View the entire "Mike" BS as not wanting to buy the Presidency [for himself], but attempting to buy the hammer at a brokered convention. The power of that, and not having to soil his hands being actually in office, would let him either be kingmaker if he uses the hammer to help a winner, and being alternatively a Republican-satisfied Bloomberg with four-more. Either way the surrogate takes the heat for unpopular steps in office, with propaganda support to lessen the sting, while the billionaires get their continued privilege, distanced from having to take any of the heat. In effect, status quo with Bloomberg owed something. It would not be a bad thing to aim for from Bloomberg's position, if motivated more toward dark enterprise vs responsibility to an entire populace. The class war against the rest of us going on, same old, same old.
_____________UPDATE______________
Relevant to this post and the one below, four excellent links. Without excerpting. First, here. Read it if not any of the other three because it is the most thought provoking. Also, here, here and here. Which outletdo should you trust?
____________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Is the Klobuchar borderline staying power together with her disproportionate press coverage [e.g., NYT endorsed] a precursor to a Bloomberg - Klobuchar ticket? It would play better than a Bloomberg - Buttigieg pairing, and could spend what it takes. Progressives should be cautiously cognizant. A Bloomberg - Biden ticket, how would that play? Bloomberg - Yang? Bloomberg - Warren? Unlikely, but never say never.
_____________UPDATE______________
Relevant to this post and the one below, four excellent links. Without excerpting. First, here. Read it if not any of the other three because it is the most thought provoking. Also, here, here and here. Which outlet
____________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Is the Klobuchar borderline staying power together with her disproportionate press coverage [e.g., NYT endorsed] a precursor to a Bloomberg - Klobuchar ticket? It would play better than a Bloomberg - Buttigieg pairing, and could spend what it takes. Progressives should be cautiously cognizant. A Bloomberg - Biden ticket, how would that play? Bloomberg - Yang? Bloomberg - Warren? Unlikely, but never say never.
Sunday, February 16, 2020
The Bern. What it will stiffle and why we need it. Images worth two thousand words?
Both from https://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/
The Bern- A bark at oligarchs. Feel it now, or later wish you had.
The Bern- A bark at oligarchs. Feel it now, or later wish you had.
In step together... Together with three likely as proud trailing suits, or whatever.
Sometimes you have to love The Daily Mail, for its imagination -
That shows how a pairing can be a four more. No matter how much spent.
(click the image to clearly read - THE HORROR)
UPDATE LINK - Buying room to Bloom. Expect an early frost? Hope for one?
That shows how a pairing can be a four more. No matter how much spent.
(click the image to clearly read - THE HORROR)
UPDATE LINK - Buying room to Bloom. Expect an early frost? Hope for one?
It puzzles. Why does mainstream media use the term "moderate" when "corporatist tool" is the more appropriate description?
Euphemism is its own reward? What? "Crypto-Republican?"
Or the plain old truth without shading, "Rightwing class warrior against the poor, against the prols?"
What they are is what they should be called. Clear and present -- candidates.
UPDATE: A new term, may it grow legs
Status quo Klo
Or the plain old truth without shading, "Rightwing class warrior against the poor, against the prols?"
What they are is what they should be called. Clear and present -- candidates.
UPDATE: A new term, may it grow legs
Status quo Klo
Friday, February 14, 2020
Just another Wall Street whore? Hello Biden. Hello Ms. Clinton. Hello, Pete. Astute company? Or, doing what comes naturally?
Link. Thousand bucks a plate X 150 paying their Klobuchar dues = dependencies and expectations? Worse, inclinations among those who identify with each other and the class war against the poor and marginal. [Edit]Against paycheck to paycheck thrall and credit card usurythralls and credit card usury victims. Power suppressing the powerless, from propaganda to street demonstration policing.
{End edit]
OM LINE: These Wall Street types do not give. They invest. Investment offered, and bought. End of story.
____________UPDATE____________
An unexpected AP flip-flop report (published after the above post) opens:
[italics added] Also, AP, a gotcha thing. I could not myself give the gentleman's name. Sure, I am not running for president, but it still rings "GOTCHA" to me.
Next, this is old news Klobuchar faced in the past which would arise again should she gain traction lasting beyond the landing of the Bloomberg purchasing exercise, Super Tuesday, where money's been talking quite a bit via the Bloomberg deep pocket, and independent of any actual merit the second "Mayor B." candidacy entails.
LAST: This report link sent to me is news to me, and not an old cliam. As a BDS supporter - something has to generate sensible movement among Israeli leadership. And it surely is not Jarad's insulting "solution." Something real is instead needed with BDS available as incentivization. Annexation of occupied territory seized by warfare is not a generally good thing to countenance; given the mischief others may see as, "If the Israelis get away with it ...". We have Ilhan Omar, but she has a minority voice drowned out by AIPAC and Mark Mellman. who have done our nation a great injustice with their fuck-Bernie business [do your own websearch if you do not like mine, and draw your own circumstantial conclusions if you don't like mine]. Sure, Mellman is a U.S. citizen with First Amendment rights. Has he registered as a foreign agent, or would he be contending that his latest mischief is not on behalf of Israel in a way requiring such registration?
Still, in a worse light upon Klobuchar, in the opinion here at Crabgrass she is a superior choice to either Mayor B, or Biden.
Judgment in light of all circumstances media publish, is a very subjective thing, and we can only rely on so much beyond our own experiences. Which outlet do you turst? For me, not Comcast/MSNBC nor CNN - each being viewed as continuing unfairness toward Bernie and Warren, serving status quo forces over progressive CHANGE.
-
{End edit]
OM LINE: These Wall Street types do not give. They invest. Investment offered, and bought. End of story.
____________UPDATE____________
An unexpected AP flip-flop report (published after the above post) opens:
Klobuchar shifts on immigration before Nevada caucuses
By SARA BURNETT and MICHELLE L. PRICE Associated Press
February 14, 2020 — 11:50pm
LAS VEGAS — Democratic presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar says she no longer believes English should be the national language of the U.S., disavowing a vote she took more than a decade ago as she tries to build support in a state where Hispanics make up a critical constituency.
Campaigning in Las Vegas, the three-term Minnesota senator said Friday that she has changed her stance since voting for an English-language amendment in 2007 and has "taken a strong position against" it. She also blasted President Donald Trump for using immigrants as "wedges" and said as president she would work with Republicans to achieve comprehensive immigration reform.
Klobuchar's record on immigration is under scrutiny after her third-place finish in the New Hampshire primary this week revived her campaign and sent her on to Nevada's Feb. 22 caucuses with fresh momentum. After focusing much of her campaign on the first two voting states — Iowa and New Hampshire, both predominantly white — she's now navigating a much more diverse electorate, where some of her moderate positions and willingness to vote with her Republican colleagues could be a liability.
Klobuchar was one of 17 Democrats to support a 2007 amendment that would have reversed President Bill Clinton's executive order requiring federal agencies to provide materials in languages other than English. It passed 64-33, but the larger immigration bill died.
[italics added] Also, AP, a gotcha thing. I could not myself give the gentleman's name. Sure, I am not running for president, but it still rings "GOTCHA" to me.
Next, this is old news Klobuchar faced in the past which would arise again should she gain traction lasting beyond the landing of the Bloomberg purchasing exercise, Super Tuesday, where money's been talking quite a bit via the Bloomberg deep pocket, and independent of any actual merit the second "Mayor B." candidacy entails.
LAST: This report link sent to me is news to me, and not an old cliam. As a BDS supporter - something has to generate sensible movement among Israeli leadership. And it surely is not Jarad's insulting "solution." Something real is instead needed with BDS available as incentivization. Annexation of occupied territory seized by warfare is not a generally good thing to countenance; given the mischief others may see as, "If the Israelis get away with it ...". We have Ilhan Omar, but she has a minority voice drowned out by AIPAC and Mark Mellman. who have done our nation a great injustice with their fuck-Bernie business [do your own websearch if you do not like mine, and draw your own circumstantial conclusions if you don't like mine]. Sure, Mellman is a U.S. citizen with First Amendment rights. Has he registered as a foreign agent, or would he be contending that his latest mischief is not on behalf of Israel in a way requiring such registration?
Still, in a worse light upon Klobuchar, in the opinion here at Crabgrass she is a superior choice to either Mayor B, or Biden.
Judgment in light of all circumstances media publish, is a very subjective thing, and we can only rely on so much beyond our own experiences. Which outlet do you turst? For me, not Comcast/MSNBC nor CNN - each being viewed as continuing unfairness toward Bernie and Warren, serving status quo forces over progressive CHANGE.
-
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
I don't want spin. I want data. [UPDATED]
Compare and contrast; leading vs informing, and such; here and here, and from that second item, did I say spin? Yes, I did say spin. Three spins, AP fluff being carried in a midwest locality. Wikipedia - really, to the rescue. A data first plus.
Data is its own reward.
UPDATE: Now this - I surely call it data, and major data. Your call?
To me, this is also major data. Your call, here too?
That last item tells me more about the Bloomberg candidacy than mainstream spin, hither and yon, without defining key fact while spinning press release BS.
Data is its own reward.
UPDATE: Now this - I surely call it data, and major data. Your call?
To me, this is also major data. Your call, here too?
That last item tells me more about the Bloomberg candidacy than mainstream spin, hither and yon, without defining key fact while spinning press release BS.
New Hampshire's Dem Primary results demand that somebody be politically incorrect. So, here goes - why does nobody's polling in demographic bloc, gender, ethnicity, race, income, age, etc., ask gay or straight? What is "third rail" about the question, and why?
With the Mayor being the only gay candidate, how is that demographically helping or hurting him, in the lower turnout primaries?
It is as if the question of that demographic split is Verboten. Why?
The bias here against him is ambitious to a fault. Having interjected himself into national attention by challenging Ellison and Perez for DNC head honcho election, he next says he's the Presidential mayor in things, and what are his policies?
He's the most conservative of the bunch, i.e., most Republican of the "Democrats," youngest, and gay. He seems to generate trust among a substantial number of the Iowa and New Hampshire folks.
And will Amy see the "hard on staff" question arise again, now that she's gotten some traction?
Bernie has to face a mountain of deceit, including Clinton rage, and yet his support base is strongest in orientation and will. Is that enough?
Saddest result so far - Warren's not being top three. Most cheerful result, for progressives and those looking at a career politician's full record - the Biden slippage. He never was presidential, even while part of the conservative Obama presidency. And he was all too Republican in willingness over time to ax away at Social Security. Bless that stuff. And distance it from policy setting, please.
Klobuchar? Over Warren? People so far have made a big mistake. A few, actually.
But, the ambitious climber of a Rhodes Scholar, Ivy Leaguer showing up big so far? Why? The lalst Rhodes Scholar in the White House was a Gringrich facilating disaster; and some folks want to try another smooth-talking one? Why? Billionaires love him, but how should that translate to votes?
It seems from the progressive peerspective here to be no different than voting for Bloomberg to vote for the mayor. Age and accumulated wealth differ; but the ultimate candidacy depends upon the same stale constricting money perspective of wealth calling all the shots. Either way, wealth will be in the driver's seat if either of the former mayors captures a large segment of the primary vorte. Those new Dems, the Bernie backers liking AOC and Progressive Caucus policies such as Medicare for All need to show up in further primary voting. In short, gotta push aside the impediments or continue facing modern-day serfdom at the hands of Wall Street and corporate grinding.
Soon, a third mayor - mayor pete will greet mayor Bloomberg, one having the wealth the other covets (but out of Wall Street servicing, not out of carving himself a political career). A Bernie - Bloomberg race would be interesting. With Pete left by a curbside.
___________________________
image credit: Down With Tyranny
_______________UPDATE_______________
You look at the bio, private school, Harvard, Rhodes Scholar, military ticket punched, McKinsey, run for Indiana statewide office and lose, run to inject the name into national party donor and leadership attention - to head the DNC and lose; and currently run for President after earning only a college town city hall short and questioned tenure. This is a man impatient to advance; and with a background more Republican than progressive. But, being gay, did he look at the Republican vs Democrat career paths one against another; and then meet Michele Bachmann in full gay-hate fury in picking his course? Deciding upon a Blue Dog career, slickly packaged and tightly disciplined? To cash in? He reminds me of Dick Gephart. That integrity and outlook troward the single payer worldview. But that is just reading and guessing early in a process where the Bloomberg name has not seen a ballot. Also, others admittedly see the man in a better light. To the extent of voting for him, which is interesting but not worrying. Others see potential in him worth worry, with a wealthy few investing money in him, his candidacy and resolve, while a clearly substantial number of voters felt a call to back Mayor Pete; twice so far.
It is as if the question of that demographic split is Verboten. Why?
The bias here against him is ambitious to a fault. Having interjected himself into national attention by challenging Ellison and Perez for DNC head honcho election, he next says he's the Presidential mayor in things, and what are his policies?
He's the most conservative of the bunch, i.e., most Republican of the "Democrats," youngest, and gay. He seems to generate trust among a substantial number of the Iowa and New Hampshire folks.
And will Amy see the "hard on staff" question arise again, now that she's gotten some traction?
Bernie has to face a mountain of deceit, including Clinton rage, and yet his support base is strongest in orientation and will. Is that enough?
Saddest result so far - Warren's not being top three. Most cheerful result, for progressives and those looking at a career politician's full record - the Biden slippage. He never was presidential, even while part of the conservative Obama presidency. And he was all too Republican in willingness over time to ax away at Social Security. Bless that stuff. And distance it from policy setting, please.
Klobuchar? Over Warren? People so far have made a big mistake. A few, actually.
But, the ambitious climber of a Rhodes Scholar, Ivy Leaguer showing up big so far? Why? The lalst Rhodes Scholar in the White House was a Gringrich facilating disaster; and some folks want to try another smooth-talking one? Why? Billionaires love him, but how should that translate to votes?
It seems from the progressive peerspective here to be no different than voting for Bloomberg to vote for the mayor. Age and accumulated wealth differ; but the ultimate candidacy depends upon the same stale constricting money perspective of wealth calling all the shots. Either way, wealth will be in the driver's seat if either of the former mayors captures a large segment of the primary vorte. Those new Dems, the Bernie backers liking AOC and Progressive Caucus policies such as Medicare for All need to show up in further primary voting. In short, gotta push aside the impediments or continue facing modern-day serfdom at the hands of Wall Street and corporate grinding.
 |
| pick your paradigm mayor - privatizing parks vs standing up to landlords |
Soon, a third mayor - mayor pete will greet mayor Bloomberg, one having the wealth the other covets (but out of Wall Street servicing, not out of carving himself a political career). A Bernie - Bloomberg race would be interesting. With Pete left by a curbside.
___________________________
image credit: Down With Tyranny
_______________UPDATE_______________
You look at the bio, private school, Harvard, Rhodes Scholar, military ticket punched, McKinsey, run for Indiana statewide office and lose, run to inject the name into national party donor and leadership attention - to head the DNC and lose; and currently run for President after earning only a college town city hall short and questioned tenure. This is a man impatient to advance; and with a background more Republican than progressive. But, being gay, did he look at the Republican vs Democrat career paths one against another; and then meet Michele Bachmann in full gay-hate fury in picking his course? Deciding upon a Blue Dog career, slickly packaged and tightly disciplined? To cash in? He reminds me of Dick Gephart. That integrity and outlook troward the single payer worldview. But that is just reading and guessing early in a process where the Bloomberg name has not seen a ballot. Also, others admittedly see the man in a better light. To the extent of voting for him, which is interesting but not worrying. Others see potential in him worth worry, with a wealthy few investing money in him, his candidacy and resolve, while a clearly substantial number of voters felt a call to back Mayor Pete; twice so far.
Monday, February 10, 2020
“Over and over, Donald Trump promised Americans that he would not cut Social Security and Medicare. He lied,” Sanders tweeted. “When we win, we’re not going to just protect Social Security and Medicare, we’re going to expand them.”
The headline is a paragraph from HuffPo, here, which in context is quoting Bernie. Excerpting:
There is more to the HuffPo item, the link is already given, and readers are urged to read it all. What we know from this is that Bernie not only sets his own record against Biden's, but also against Trump's; with Biden characterized as not protective of entitlements in the past (but changing his tune now); whereas if winning the endorsement, Bernie iotends to confront Trtump as an outright liar of unmatched gall and proportions. Trump lied his way into the White House and Bernie intends the truth to force Trump out.
With Biden's own compromised background, could he make the case as convincingly as Bernie? Unlikely. We shall see this play out soon, given primary season being around the corner.
01/23/2020 03:01 pm ET Updated 6 days ago
Bernie Sanders Has Been Planning A Social Security Fight With Donald Trump For Years
This week, the president finally gave it to him.
Asked by “Squawk Box” host Joe Kernen whether “entitlements” ― a Washington term for universal social insurance programs ― would ever be “on his plate,” Trump responded that they would.
“At some point they will be,” Trump said in the interview from Davos, Switzerland. “At the right time, we will take a look at that.”
It’s unclear if Trump even knew of exactly what he was speaking.
[... including headline text] After HuffPost’s story went live Thursday afternoon, Trump defended his record further on Twitter. “Democrats are going to destroy your Social Security,” he wrote. “I have totally left it alone, as promised, and will save it!”
Sanders shot back in a quote-tweeted message with a screenshot of an article documenting how Trump’s budget resolutions have sought to cut the program. “More lies,” Sanders wrote.
The timing of Trump’s comments to CNBC could not have come at a more opportune moment for Sanders, who is litigating a pitched battle with former Vice President Joe Biden, with whom he is neck-and-neck in the presidential primary, over their respective records on Social Security.
[...] Sanders is correct to note that as a senator in the 1980s and ’90s, Biden endorsed and even cast votes for legislation that cut or would have cut Social Security benefits. He also served alongside former President Barack Obama, who sought a budget compromise deal ― or “grand bargain” ― with congressional Republicans that would have reduced Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment.
Sanders, by contrast, was an early opponent of those would-be deals and a proponent of expanding Social Security.
The Trump remarks provide Sanders the chance to further distinguish himself from Biden. Perhaps more importantly, they also give him the opportunity to execute on a carefully crafted plan to hold Trump accountable for his populist rhetoric.
Virtually since the moment Trump was elected, Sanders had been reminding Trump of his campaign trail promises not to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Sanders’ Senate office captured video of Trump mocking his fellow Republicans at an event in New Hampshire in May 2015 for embracing Social Security and Medicare cuts, and promising that he would be different.
He headlined a rally with Democratic leaders in Congress in December 2016 calling on Trump not to cut Medicare.
The following month, as it became clear that repealing the Affordable Care Act would be a Republican priority in Trump’s first months in office, Sanders printed out one of Trump’s tweets promising to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and used it as a prop on the Senate floor.
“If he was sincere, then I would hope that tomorrow or maybe today he could send out a tweet and tell his Republican colleagues to stop wasting their time and all of our time,” Sanders said, standing alongside a poster of the tweet.
Sanders subsequently condemned every one of Trump’s annual budget proposals for trying to restrict eligibility for Social Security’s Disability Insurance program. He consistently framed those budgets as betrayals of Trump’s campaign promises.
“Donald Trump promised the American people that he would be a different type of Republican, that he would be a champion of the working American and that he would not cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” Sanders said in a statement about Trump’s fiscal 2020 budget in March. “But his budget does the exact opposite of what he promised the American people.”
It’s all part of Sanders’ argument ― however oversimplistic ― that Trump won by appealing to the struggles of millions of working-class people, who either abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of him or stayed home.
As a candidate, Trump indeed combined racist rhetoric and hard-line immigration policies with promises to bring back manufacturing jobs through more equitable trade agreements, protect social insurance programs, ensure universal health care, and “drain” Washington of its swamp-like corruption.
There is more to the HuffPo item, the link is already given, and readers are urged to read it all. What we know from this is that Bernie not only sets his own record against Biden's, but also against Trump's; with Biden characterized as not protective of entitlements in the past (but changing his tune now); whereas if winning the endorsement, Bernie iotends to confront Trtump as an outright liar of unmatched gall and proportions. Trump lied his way into the White House and Bernie intends the truth to force Trump out.
With Biden's own compromised background, could he make the case as convincingly as Bernie? Unlikely. We shall see this play out soon, given primary season being around the corner.
In all attention everywhere, Crooks and Liars looks at Elizabeth Warren and George Stephanopoulos. And -
I really love the way Elizabeth Warren shamed George Stephanopoulos for trying to shame HER into taking billionaire contributions from SuperPACs on ABC's This Week. No matter how hard he tried to shovel the conventional wisdom in her lap, she shoveled it right back on him.
After downplaying her impressive finish in Iowa because only the "top two matter," Warren pushed back, noting that she didn't take money from anyone other than grassroots donors.
Ah, but GSteph was ready for that. noting that other candidates -- Pete Buttigieg specifically -- aren't shy about taking the big bucks from whoever might be waving them around.
" And [Buttigieg] made no apologies for doing what he's doing," Stephanopoulis noted. "He says it's important to build the biggest coalition you can."
Oh, well then. Let's just round up the Koch Brothers in the name of coalition building. Sell your soul to the devil and it's his forever, after all. Okay, that's my retort. Warren's was better.
"You know, the coalition of billionaires isl not exactly what's going carry us over the top," she shot back, before going into her usual discussion of government working for billionaires.
SCORE. She landed that one. She went on to discuss how people who aren't billionaires pay their taxes "so that the roads are paved and the bridges still work, and we provide for the defense before making the case for the abject corruption in Washington, DC while also taking a slap at Michael Bloomberg.
"It's a Washington that makes -- it's a bunch of billionaires that make big campaign contributions or reach in their own pockets, like Michael Bloomberg does," she explained. "If it's going to take sucking up to billionaires or being a billionaire to get the Democratic nomination to run for president, then all I can say is, buckle up, America, because our government is going to work even better for billionaires and even worse for everyone else."
LINK - [italics added]
Looting the fisk, and lying about it. What manner of bold brigand are we looking at?
Who else?
SeattleTimes carrying a Feb. 7 WaPo feed:
"If my father travels, . . .". Two generations of liars is enough. Shut that abuse down. It is theft from the nation; from every small taxpayer struggling to keep from drowning in debt. The man, and his children, seem conscienceless over money.
Even Bill Clinton was not that saucy with public money, and when he and Foundation struck, it was not a bit here and there up to half a million. Surely wife Hillary shook a different money tree for more; speeches at Goldman Sachs; but that stuff sunk because it stunk. Leading to "President Trump."
SeattleTimes carrying a Feb. 7 WaPo feed:
$650 a night at Mar-a-Lago, $17,000 a month at Bedminster: What Trump’s company charges taxpayers for Secret Service lodging
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s company charges the Secret Service for the rooms agents use while protecting him at his luxury properties — billing U.S. taxpayers at rates as high as $650 per night, according to federal records and people who have seen receipts.
Those charges, compiled here for the first time, show that Trump has an unprecedented — and largely hidden — business relationship with his own government. When Trump visits his clubs in Palm Beach, Florida, and Bedminster, New Jersey, the service needs space to post guards and store equipment.
[...] Trump’s company billed the government even for days when Trump wasn’t there.
These payments appear to contradict the Trump Organization’s own statements about what it charges members of his government entourage. “If my father travels, they stay at our properties for free — meaning, like, cost for housekeeping,” Trump’s son Eric said last year in a Yahoo Finance interview.
The full extent of the Secret Service’s payments to Trump’s company is not known. The Secret Service has not listed them in public databases of federal spending, as is usually required for payments over $10,000.
Instead, documents have come out piecemeal, through public-records requests from news organizations and watchdog groups. The Washington Post compiled available records and found 103 payments from the Secret Service to Trump’s company dated between January 2017 and April 2018.
The records show more than $471,000 in payments from taxpayers to Trump’s companies. But — because these records cover only a fraction of Trump’s travel during a fraction of his term — the actual total is likely to be higher.
"If my father travels, . . .". Two generations of liars is enough. Shut that abuse down. It is theft from the nation; from every small taxpayer struggling to keep from drowning in debt. The man, and his children, seem conscienceless over money.
Even Bill Clinton was not that saucy with public money, and when he and Foundation struck, it was not a bit here and there up to half a million. Surely wife Hillary shook a different money tree for more; speeches at Goldman Sachs; but that stuff sunk because it stunk. Leading to "President Trump."
Messaging to the Billionaires - generic, and individualized.
generically -
individually -
Don't plagiarize. It makes you look too cheap to form ideas on your own when you can steal something from others.
Shabby, shabby, shabby. No doubt of that. It makes you look like shit. It shows you as insincere. (Same thing.) Like some cheap whore, no matter your net worth and self image. Just a whore. With a come-on that only demeans you.
incidentally -
Money can't buy you love. It takes quality to be loved as a politician. And love for the electorate. Gotta have that.
If all you love is yourself and your money then neither counts AND - GET OUT OF THE WAY. STAY OUT OF THE WAY. YOU AND YOUR HENCHMEN. THAT IS A COMMAND, NOT A POLITE REQUEST.
GET BERNED.
NYTimes - April 16, 2019 - henchmen -
[italics, red bolding added]
I make my choices. Bernard Schwartz does not. Clinton surrogates, including small town mayors among them, do not choose for me either. Finally, we all know the press euphemism for crypto-Republicans populating perhaps too big a tent; "the moderate or center-left wing of the party," There truly is nothing "moderate" at all about a mob of right wing zealots with money and with their ever-ongoing class warfare against middle and lower class folks like us while masquerading as something else. Whores, whether they plagiarize or not. (Some don't have the money yet, but are pliant while lustful for the money that goes to pliant career politicians whether that be as a former mayor or something else).
ALL OF YOU CO-CONSPIRATORS -
MAY YOU END UP GETTING BERNED.
individually -
Don't plagiarize. It makes you look too cheap to form ideas on your own when you can steal something from others.
Shabby, shabby, shabby. No doubt of that. It makes you look like shit. It shows you as insincere. (Same thing.) Like some cheap whore, no matter your net worth and self image. Just a whore. With a come-on that only demeans you.
incidentally -
Money can't buy you love. It takes quality to be loved as a politician. And love for the electorate. Gotta have that.
If all you love is yourself and your money then neither counts AND - GET OUT OF THE WAY. STAY OUT OF THE WAY. YOU AND YOUR HENCHMEN. THAT IS A COMMAND, NOT A POLITE REQUEST.
GET BERNED.
NYTimes - April 16, 2019 - henchmen -
Mr. Brock, who supported Mrs. Clinton’s past presidential bids, said “the Bernie question comes up in every fund-raising meeting I do.” Steven Rattner, a major Democratic Party donor, said the topic was discussed “endlessly” in his orbit, and among Democratic leaders it was becoming hard to block out.
“It has gone from being a low hum to a rumble,” said Susan Swecker, the chairwoman of Virginia’s Democratic Party.
Howard Wolfson, who spent months immersed in Democratic polling and focus groups on behalf of former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, had a blunt message for Sanders skeptics: “People underestimate the possibility of him becoming the nominee at their own peril.”
The discussion about Mr. Sanders has to date been largely confined to private settings because — like establishment Republicans in 2016 — Democrats are uneasy about elevating him or alienating his supporters.
The matter of What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity has, for example, hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz. The gatherings have included scores from the moderate or center-left wing of the party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden.
[italics, red bolding added]
I make my choices. Bernard Schwartz does not. Clinton surrogates, including small town mayors among them, do not choose for me either. Finally, we all know the press euphemism for crypto-Republicans populating perhaps too big a tent; "the moderate or center-left wing of the party," There truly is nothing "moderate" at all about a mob of right wing zealots with money and with their ever-ongoing class warfare against middle and lower class folks like us while masquerading as something else. Whores, whether they plagiarize or not. (Some don't have the money yet, but are pliant while lustful for the money that goes to pliant career politicians whether that be as a former mayor or something else).
ALL OF YOU CO-CONSPIRATORS -
MAY YOU END UP GETTING BERNED.
Thursday, February 06, 2020
Pete Privilege, South Bend mayor, and a well written catalog of what galls me about the little guy, by one who writes better of it than I could. [UPDATED]
 |
| Link |
Pete Privilege is ambitious to a fault, and not nearly as special and spectacular as he believes himself. Getting his ticket punched in the military much as many 2d Lt. types in Vietnam were doing, and all the clawing and sucking up, when well cataloged, is shameful. But read of it per the original exposition, (which is excerpted in the balance of this post). Properly transcribing embedded links into an excerpt is onerous, so figure out I had a reason for doing it, and follow the links for full impact:
[...} When he speaks about education and opportunity, Pete reminds me of my high school guidance counselor. That guy was a jerk. He didn’t want me to go to college when I did. He thought I needed discipline and suggested service work or the military. I didn’t need discipline, but freedom and respect. And money. Mostly, I needed money.
Similarly, Pete says college isn’t for everybody. I agree, in principle. That doesn’t mean I want him—or anyone of his class background, for that matter—deciding who is and isn’t suitable for management, government, and other professions reserved for the literate and educated.
Still, off to college Pete and I both went. After leapfrogging from Harvard to Oxford, Pete quickly (and now infamously) found a job at McKinsey & Company. Though I did well academically, no one taught me how to job-hunt. After college I felt lucky to get accepted by a temp agency. They set me up as a hospital janitor. [...]
[...] But my comrades on the “housekeeping” crew did not need more paperwork, or whatever else Pete is selling. They needed free health care, housing subsidies, and a labor union.
Those aren’t items on Pete’s agenda. [...] Recently The Intercept reported that his campaign was hiring workers through Amazon Mechanical Turk, a nefarious project to crush labor power forever by turning every imaginable job into soul-crushing, ultra-low-wage piecework.
When I look at Pete, I see the face of America’s rotten sham meritocracy, and I know I am not alone.
Like so many bourgeois strivers, Pete takes up space wherever he goes. He never wanted to be a journalist, but he still took a newsroom internship. One of his Harvard professors got him the gig. According to the Washington Post, the reporter Pete ended up working for had been “pushing for her station to find an African American intern—or at the very least, someone who actually wanted to be a reporter.” In short, he used his connections to deprive an aspiring black journalist of an opportunity that might have made their career. Why? Because he wanted to be president one day, and thought it would be useful to see how the media worked.
“I grew up surrounded by crumbling factories and empty houses,” Pete recently said in his endorsement interview with the New York Times. But does he know what it’s like for people who lived and worked in such places? I think not.
[...] I’m not the only person who has noticed how Pete tries, and fails, to slum it. Last month in Iowa, he touted himself as a Washington, D.C., outsider, “somebody who can actually walk from his house to the nearest cornfield.” Golly! Shawn Sebastian, an Iowan and Working Families Party member, tweeted in response that Pete was “the mayor of a small college town dominated by a massive private university. Pete’s dad was a Gramsci scholar and he went to private schools his whole life. Enough of this phony rust belt/rural signaling. Pete walks into wine caves, not cornfields.”
[...] When I surveyed my social media followers for their “Pete peeves,” they offered a laundry list of class cues. “He stands for nothing except his own career,” one person responded. Others noted the “self-righteous smirk whenever he’s criticized,” as well as his “vocal affect where he believes that taking a portentous tone makes his banal statements seem profound.”
[...] When I see Pete tense up and purse his lips, or take a hasty gulp of water when he feels pressured to explain some facet of his paint-by-numbers political career or his regressive, unpopular policies, it makes me want to barricade the street with burning tires and shut down a container port. If Pete is nervous, it means others like him are nervous. They fear that everything they have worked for in life—not in the proletarian sense, mind you, but in the sense of writing ingratiating letters and leveraging connections—is at risk. They’re afraid of the socialist movement. Good. It’s about time.
[...] When Pete was asked at the Vice News Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum what he would bring to a potluck, he was stumped. “Is it a breakfast potluck?” he asked. After a clarification from the hosts, Pete said he would bring “chips and salsa.” Chips and salsa! Thanks, Rhodes Scholar Pete. Such stinginess is typical among the upwardly mobile. How about we eat at a restaurant next time, and you can pick up the check?
While we’re on the subject of authenticity, it’s past time for a frank assessment of Pete’s most-touted qualification: his military service.
I’ve never met an enlisted veteran who talks about war or military life in the way that Pete does. I certainly noticed how, in the last debate before the Iowa Caucuses, he spoke of the plight of “enlisted people that I served with,” as though they were a separate species. Even for an officer, Pete seems especially smug.
[...] This goes for all of you, but especially for the presidential candidates. Stop talking down to the working class. Stop stealing our valor as veterans of poverty. Simply say, “I am a professor’s son. I am more conservative than my father was, and here’s why.” And then, Pete, you can start listening. Only then will you understand why your class act falls flat, even though you’ve ticked every box like the good student you always were.
If you did not: go Prep School, Ivy League, secure a Rhodes Scholarship, and step into REMF military ticket-punch acquisition (no Purple Heart, no combat rifle issued); if not born on third base and thinking you hit a World Series game seven walk-off home run; and if you vote for the twit; you are an idiot.
Hat tip to a reader for sending the link, (it fitting thinking here even if the reader might have a kinder regard for the self-inflated little climber).
____________UPDATE_____________
Bern Notice has posted again, disclosing another troubling aspect of the South Bend mayor's wine cave leanings; his real support base not having much at all to do with misguided Iowans. Instead: Billionaire backing and EVERYTHING that rides and guides that stagecoach, feeding hands getting licked and not bitten being the old saying springing to mind. Obsequious boot-licking toward the 0.01%; witty spiel and posturing for the unmoneyed electorate. Unctuousness for everybody, he's on that path. Smooth enough to not make too big show of the boot licking in wine caves and similar closed venues. Hungering for advancement; a lean and hungry look.
________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Between Trump and the three members of the Republican wing of the Democratic party; Biden bought into false touting of WMD hysteria; the mayor is an enigma that way; Trump showed restraint by doing only an assassination, so far, but in four more years a war with Iran becomes more likely with no Trump reelection worry. If the Israelis want a war with Iran let them fight it. We can watch. Trump seems deferential to a fault toward Bibi and Bibi's intentions. Who might see us to a best, peaceful course, of the three conservatives? Klobuchar. She's neither the loose cannon Trump and Biden each represents, nor Pete, who again, is an enigma.
Amy showed a little bit of Wellstone in her, back then.
Medicare for All, if that is an improvement you'd value, there is only either Warren or Bernie. True democracy for all or at least trying mightily to move there against massive DC institutional friction? Ditto. Best of the "same old" crowd? Klobuchar. And that overlooks Bloomberg poised to mislead those most easily misled by the last advertisement they'd seen on TV. Warren at least does not have this to harpy at her, should she, not Bernie, end up the nominee.
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9237259/GettyImages_632237762.jpg){kind=link}
FURTHER: Bern Notice originates with a strong Sanders supporter. READ THE LINKED POST ANYWAY. What the post does is give links to regular MSM reporting of the lil' mayor's proclivities to fit in with his wealthy donor crowd. If you believe those MSM outlets back Bernie, go buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Trump or somebody in his cabinet will sell it to you - and what a price, how could you refuse? (Get a piece of paper saying you hold title. What more would you want?) Follow the Burn Notice LINKS! It will be an eye opener.
Wednesday, February 05, 2020
Iowa likes the McKinsey consultancy. Or, it just doesn't know better.
They had optioins. Status quo Joe was one, and flawed, and the less than rabid support for Joe must prove something. PAC, corporate, and big donor Money and inner party endorsements proved inadequate; the candidate was what voters perceived and to which they reacted - with a collective yawn. The Iowa folks identified more with South Bend than with Obama's legacy or Minnesota's Senate
AKlo, an honest civil servant, nonetheless had to see her effort fading. She trailed both the little McKinsey man and ol' Joe among the Republican wing of the Democrtic Party; not making 15%.
Of the three crypto Republicans, she held more promise while sitting on a super secure Senate seat in any event. Joe lost big time. Bernie and Warren each did okay in a state few view as a bastion of progressive thought.
New Hampshire will be its separate story. Biden hangs onto the gambling state's turnout hope. Then onto South Carolina with its Dem inner party set ways; while never delivering a win in the general election, to where it rightfully should be discounted as unrepresentative of any real final value to the convention nominee. No l win that state in the general, come hell or high water.
What we know now - Andrew Yang should stay in. His guaranteed income proposal is now voiced ahead of its time, but robotics marches on, jobs disappearing via that march. In Minnesota, the robots will take over the iron range, the real robots, not just the likes of Stauber and Bakk. The brigands on the range will remain. The work will be robot progress, human whining, until Yang's idea takes hold as sound mid-21st Century reality. Then they'll get in their boats and fish while getting the Yang money. Snowmobiling and ice fishing in winter. In Iowa, robot machinery and labor will farm, with fewer places to fish than land of 10,000 lakes.
AKlo, an honest civil servant, nonetheless had to see her effort fading. She trailed both the little McKinsey man and ol' Joe among the Republican wing of the Democrtic Party; not making 15%.
Of the three crypto Republicans, she held more promise while sitting on a super secure Senate seat in any event. Joe lost big time. Bernie and Warren each did okay in a state few view as a bastion of progressive thought.
New Hampshire will be its separate story. Biden hangs onto the gambling state's turnout hope. Then onto South Carolina with its Dem inner party set ways; while never delivering a win in the general election, to where it rightfully should be discounted as unrepresentative of any real final value to the convention nominee. No l win that state in the general, come hell or high water.
What we know now - Andrew Yang should stay in. His guaranteed income proposal is now voiced ahead of its time, but robotics marches on, jobs disappearing via that march. In Minnesota, the robots will take over the iron range, the real robots, not just the likes of Stauber and Bakk. The brigands on the range will remain. The work will be robot progress, human whining, until Yang's idea takes hold as sound mid-21st Century reality. Then they'll get in their boats and fish while getting the Yang money. Snowmobiling and ice fishing in winter. In Iowa, robot machinery and labor will farm, with fewer places to fish than land of 10,000 lakes.
Something people should know is pending - a death threat to public education, via the kind of thing Trump wants nationwide (per his latest speech to some congressional members - those not boycotting).
Vouchers by another name: Montana has state-constitutional issues with such mischief, leading to the awfuls having say. Most of them are Catholics, so guess how they'll skew against Montana.
Worth mention, this. Bless that handful of true patriots. (Vigilant and sensible patriotism and elasticized malarkey don't mix.) If a pack of falsehoods is not worth listening to, then don't.
Worth mention, this. Bless that handful of true patriots. (Vigilant and sensible patriotism and elasticized malarkey don't mix.) If a pack of falsehoods is not worth listening to, then don't.
Sunday, February 02, 2020
ZeroHedge posts of Hillary Clinton, viewed through the lens of today. Sore losers are losers.
An embedded video. From an Iowa Bernie rally. At one point dissing, "The tranqulizing drug of Gradualism."
And - somebody gets booed. Which captures more attention than the rest of the Bernie revolution being about more than Bernie. Because that movement has a heart. Unlike an earlier campaign or two, by another. Who held back the olive branch in 2008 until given SoS from the spoils. Critics with their own skeletons rattling loudly lack the necessary gravitas to be viewed as other than losers. We don't want no Gradulism around here!
And - somebody gets booed. Which captures more attention than the rest of the Bernie revolution being about more than Bernie. Because that movement has a heart. Unlike an earlier campaign or two, by another. Who held back the olive branch in 2008 until given SoS from the spoils. Critics with their own skeletons rattling loudly lack the necessary gravitas to be viewed as other than losers. We don't want no Gradulism around here!
Yesterday's big Minnesota news - I can contribute to the Senate DFL again, as a collective body again, since it upgraded at the top. The iron ranger who caved in on budget after the range being satisfied, is no longer the impediment to DFL prospects and support statewide, as he was.
MPR is the link given, although there may be other outlets reporting that Bakk has been relieved of top duty; and can you say "Upgrade?"
In honor of the change, a sidebar item set somewhat deeply there has been moved to the sidebar top and will be removed at some point between now and commentary here about the Iowa caucusing after it happens.
Now the DFL Senate is better oriented to retake a majority this November.
Progress is great. Bakk isn't. From the MPR report:
Hortman is a true party insider. The insiders will consistently tell you, "Our schmucks are better than their schmucks." True or not, they will tell you that. That attitude defines an inner party person. The MPR item concluded:
UPDATE: In need of an update - please fix it ASAP folks:
https://www.dfl.org/about/elected-officials/minnesota-senate/
With news such as happened, party reform, DFL delay vexes given the goodness of the news.
FURTHER UPDATE: Dan Burns writes of the leadership upgrade:
And Kent also lacks the bullying abrasive personality which played well in Bakk's district perhaps, but which galled others in many other places. "Hortman and Kent" seems to have a better ring to it than "Hortman and Bakk." More urbane. The machine may run smoother with taconite tailings grit washed from the transmission.
In honor of the change, a sidebar item set somewhat deeply there has been moved to the sidebar top and will be removed at some point between now and commentary here about the Iowa caucusing after it happens.
Now the DFL Senate is better oriented to retake a majority this November.
Progress is great. Bakk isn't. From the MPR report:
The DFL caucus announced the decision after a marathon six-hour meeting Saturday at a carpenters’ union hall on St. Paul’s East Side, not far from the Capitol, where they were meeting behind closed doors.
Senators declined to offer a vote total or characterize the margin of the election as they walked out. Bakk left the meeting without comment about the change or his political future.
In a statement issued Saturday evening, House Speaker Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, said Kent “is a progressive champion, and I look forward to working with her as the new Senate DFL leader to improve the lives of Minnesotans. In his many years in the Legislature, Senator Bakk has been a steadfast ally for working people. As my partner and leader of the DFL Senate, he has been a trusted resource and friend. He deserves our gratitude and appreciation for his service.”
Hortman is a true party insider. The insiders will consistently tell you, "Our schmucks are better than their schmucks." True or not, they will tell you that. That attitude defines an inner party person. The MPR item concluded:
The Senate is set to convene for the 2020 legislative session on Feb. 11. All 67 senators will be on the ballot in November, for 2-year-terms, halved by decennial redistricting following this year’s U.S. Census.
UPDATE: In need of an update - please fix it ASAP folks:
https://www.dfl.org/about/elected-officials/minnesota-senate/
With news such as happened, party reform, DFL delay vexes given the goodness of the news.
FURTHER UPDATE: Dan Burns writes of the leadership upgrade:
This also means that in the more-likely-than-not event that DFLers are in charge of redistricting after 2020, Sen. Bakk won't be able to engineer some sort of Iron Range-friendly, pro-sulfides, pro-gun nuts, pro-etc. gerrymander. Or block votes on progressive priorities unless he gets his way on crap like that.
And Kent also lacks the bullying abrasive personality which played well in Bakk's district perhaps, but which galled others in many other places. "Hortman and Kent" seems to have a better ring to it than "Hortman and Bakk." More urbane. The machine may run smoother with taconite tailings grit washed from the transmission.
First US case of the new coronavirus was successfully treated in the Seattle area.
SeattlePI report. NEJM journal report. The NEJM item details progression of the patient's symptoms and how the patient was treated.
Remdesivir, a developmental drug without any published clinical testing, luckily was on the shelf before the outbreak hit the US. Who makes it, availability and pricing are not reported.
__________UPDATE___________
The Economist, reporting, the item uses the current Feb. 1 issue's print-version cover image for opening the report.
Remdesivir, a developmental drug without any published clinical testing, luckily was on the shelf before the outbreak hit the US. Who makes it, availability and pricing are not reported.
__________UPDATE___________
The Economist, reporting, the item uses the current Feb. 1 issue's print-version cover image for opening the report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)