Wednesday, January 30, 2019

"Latinos para Trump," the sign says. At the bottom in the fine print, "Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc." In English. Backed up by dubious polling, with few if any among us fooled? Something Mitch McConnell might have dreamed up with a bit of aid with the cooking from Pence.

Politico has the image with the story, and you can marvel at the flag in the image, and the fine print in English. (Flag made in China along with matching GOP flag lapel pins. No tariff.)

President Donald Trump’s new favorite talking point is a claim that his recent crusade for a southern border wall, which draws furious accusations of xenophobia and racism, has made him more likable to Hispanics.

“When you look at the Hispanic polls, I’m up 19 percent,” Trump said at the White House last week. “And the reason I’m up 19 percent … I think it’s the fact that they understand, better than anybody, what’s going on at the border.”

It was at least the third time Trump has publicly referenced the surprising number, including in a Jan. 27 tweet in which he argued his monthlong standoff with Congress was a political success. It appears to come from an NPR/Marist poll that shows his approval rating among Hispanics soaring from 31 percent in December to 50 percent this month.

“It’s an astonishing number,” Fox News host Pete Hegseth told viewers days after the Jan. 17 poll was released.

But veteran pollsters who spoke with POLITICO called the number suspect, citing issues with the poll’s sample size and methodology. Broader polling data show little sign that Trump’s standing with Hispanics is on the rise.

To the consternation of Democrats, however, it doesn’t seem to be falling, either. Trump’s dire rhetoric about immigration seems to have done little damage to his modest — but not insignificant — support among Hispanics.

Trump’s support among Latinos and Hispanics in three other polls taken in January — 18 percent in a ABC/Washington Post survey, 30 percent in a The Economist/YouGov one, and 35 percent in poll from Quinnipiac University — produced an average of 27.6 percent.

That roughly matches the 29 percent of the Hispanic vote Trump carried in the 2016 presidential election, an improvement of two percentage points over Mitt Romney’s performance with those voters four years earlier.

And Latinas? Politico shows no sign for them, no flag, no white cowboy hat?

Second class Hispanics, or what? What would Romney say? Trump doing better with that demographic segment than the Mittster; does it mean they felt 47% Angst, or that too many relatives lost their jobs when American Motors went under?

Latinas - Hushed because DJT, Inc. printed no signs for them, no cowboy hats to fit, no flags? Hushed by seeing hush money payments in amounts they'd earn by hard labor done over multiple years? Big bucks for a f--- being a turn-off idea to them? A simple truth - DJT, Inc., needs more signs. There's a guy printing signs in Anoka County, but that is its own separate story.

The overarching question emerges; will DJ Trump, Inc. print new "Latinx" signs with the footer in Spanish? (See, e.g., HuffPo, LA Times, over this actual emerging issue of political correctnex.)

A talking dildo.

Video. Eight minutes plus, without saying he loves Citizens United, dark money, and Roberts, as his kind of jurist. There's a joke from the W. Bush days about why his tie is so tight.

_____________UPDATE______________
One Kentucky item, unfavorable toward the man, here. It links to the official bill page.

Quaintly, McConnell gets WaPo op-ed space, where he declines to link to the bill itself, but rather to here. Disinformation does point away from the facts; in this case, from the bill text.

Vox, honest in it's McConnell reporting.

Stuff, here, here, here and here. Enough.

Well, almost enough. That first misc. link mentions and links to a dark money slush fund that prevailed in litigation, and for some unknown reason it gets less heat than Citizens United. That particular dark money slush fund was not helpful toward Laura Moser's progressive candidacy in the Houston area. Not unlike another. But however chimerical its chances, this HR 1 lays out talking points for 2020. Mitch understands, but is unconvincing because the bill text maps actual needed reform. It is hard to imagine Pelosi aboard the HR 1 train, were she to expect it has any chance to leave the station. She, like Mitch, is in party leadership. Differing party regulars, but leadership figures in the two party stranglehold. How much blah-blah can you take?

_____________FURTHER UPDATE_______________
As to HR 1 and how political operative people sort out over it with 2020 in mind, Angie Craig is the new Minnesota CD2 Rep., and has put her future in alignment with the bill. This is not said in a cynical way. Craig will prove to be one of the better DC pubic servants, with a greater trust here in her than in Pelosi; ditto for AOC relative to Pelosi.

Pelosi is an ax-murderer. Not using a stelleto, rather a crass blunt ax wielder. Mitch would be proud but his help for Pelosi is not needed. She's done her own dirty work. Early and with malice.

Pelosi needs to be primaried. For whatever good it might do, the step is entirely necessary.

_____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
HR 1 is going nowhere because of a Republican Senate, an insufficiently progressive total House majority, and because of the White House occupant. If McConnell has stuck to that as a speech topic, that reality, it would have galled less. DOA at the Senate if it even gets out of the House committees, true; however the man dismissed the intelligence of us all by bullshitting in ways that ignored the fact that the bill is a roadmap if not having a chance now. He got creepily partisan instead of addressing the issues.

Pelosi, with PayGo, can wave it at the Wall stuff, or whatever, how's it going to be paid, but it is clear she wanted to scuttle progressive moods. It is arguably wise to do so when the chance of implementation of the goals is non-existant, but it means having to go beg leadership if there is a 2020 alteration of terrain, and then deal cutting crap will show who Pelosi is in terms of being counter-progress at her multimillionaire core.

A lens for consideration of the PayGo thing where only Khanna, Ocasio-Cortez, and Gabbard voted no on the rules package mainly because of PayGo, is a mid-year Intercept item from last year, online here.  The lesson being how things are can capture the best of us about how things could and should be, and that log-rolling is the present norm to the point it can be questionable if not totally counterproductive. Ocasio-Cortez by dint of spirt has become a public voice as to things others have said over the years, with deaf ears turned whereas she gains attention and respect while setting an agenda table broader than has ever been popular among politicians in the past. She has along with Bernie created a view of what could be, how things should be, that was unvoiced previously to Bernie challenging the Clintons' poisoning of the Democrat well. Bless them both, and with Elizabeth Warren now, not last cycle when she was begged to move, now entering a race where Bernie will soon declare; and with the Dems superdelegate concession being only on a first ballot among committed national delegates, a dual progressive contest now might end up with Beto Booker or some such lesseer person emerging and with motive to again say four years of Trump, even four more, may be necessary to educate the Democratic insiders that if they want hands on the spoils they MUST respect a progressive agenda; i.e., abandoning Clinton-Obama-Biden versions of Republican-lite. Keep serving that brand, keep seeing Republic-actual getting the spoils. Wall Street does not care if their ass is kissed by Trump sorts, or Clinton sorts, so they are indifferent as long as progressivism is accorded no real respect; and they've had their way with the last election where a historically obnoxious and publicly disliked pair were paraded with a, "That's your choice, now vote," insulting audacity. That audacity and the evil it has done, the latest tax cut with deficit-disastrous implications being but the latest disservice done to the nation. Wall Street needs to be curbed. Surprisingly, that linked video included Biden at its outset but then looked three other ways. "It's Joe's turn" must be feared; such a mistake having been recent but absent any learning curve discernible from outside the inner party. Same old, same old cannot be a success merely because Trump is so egregious. That is the presumption of the inner Democrat operatives, that a sack of it can be sold by denigrating Trump and posing, and that thought needs to be destroyed; however long it will take of Republican control of the spoils. We need "Their Evolution" along with Our Revolution. Gotta be, however long learning may require.

___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Gotta say it again - BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON. BERNIE CAN WIN THIS TIME. THE BETO BOOKERS OF THE WORLD CAN CHANNEL FOUR MORE YEARS OF TRUMP; AS CAN THE KAMALA GILLIBRANDS; ETC. JOE, AMY? GET SERIOUS.

Thursday, January 24, 2019

Johnnie's in the basement, mixing up the medicine, . . .

Wapo reports, and embeds.

Like the man wrote and sang . . . Mammon?

Serve 'em, serve somebody a bud, if legalized.

Is there wisdom in picking a trade war with those who've built a greater wall?

Image. Bloomberg.

But remember, had there been a border war border wall back then we'd not have to put up with Texans today. Yes, a porous border did hurt Mexico. While saddling us with Ted Cruz and Beto. Beto and Ted, cause to want a wall? Indirectly at least?

UPDATE: Lyndon Johnson.

FURTHER: Note the correction. "Border war" made no sense in context, and there was a border war with an Alamo insurgency force concentration put down by superior lethal force, much as with Mad Dog Mattis' Fallujah put down. Each barbaric in its implementation. Each ultimately ineffective in the end.

If there'd been a border wall perhaps Sam Houston would have had no town named after him.

Writing in the plural while she's just one person. Presumptive-aggressive?

Link. Pablum in the plural. We? Her and her tapeworm?

UPDATE: Biden can write in the plural. Everywhere he goes it's with Anita Hill and three witnesses. Also, him and his crowns.

Monday, January 21, 2019

Kamela Harris announces presidential candidacy.

AP item, carried by Strib, stating in part:

[...] If Booker enters the race, he and Harris could face a fierce competition for support from black voters.

[...] South Carolina, where black voters make up a large share of the Democratic electorate, is likely to figure heavily into Harris's prospects. And early voting in Harris's home state of California will overlap with the traditional early nominating contests, which could give Harris a boost.

Harris's campaign team is already taking shape and includes several veterans of Democratic politics.

Juan Rodriguez, who ran Harris's 2016 Senate campaign, will manage her presidential bid. Her sister, Maya Harris, a former top adviser to Hillary Clinton, will be the campaign chair. The veteran campaign finance lawyer Marc Elias will serve as the Harris campaign's general counsel, and Angelique Cannon, who worked for Clinton's 2016 campaign, will serve as national finance director. David Huynh, who was Clinton's director of delegate operations in 2016, will serve as a senior adviser. Lily Adams, a Clinton campaign alum who has worked as Harris's spokeswoman, will be communications director.

Her staff says she plans to reject the assistance of a super PAC, as well as corporate PAC money. She's invested heavily in cultivating a digital, small-dollar donor network before her presidential bid.

Before her 2016 victory in the Senate race, Harris made her career in law enforcement. She served as the district attorney in San Francisco before she was elected to serve as attorney general.

[bolding added] From the campaign that lost to Trump. TRUMP!

If Booker does not enter the contest many will be greatly surprised. The Hill.

WashExaminer, stating:

Kamala Harris will do what Cory Booker can't: Say no to super PACs
by Philip Wegmann - January 21, 2019 12:23 PM


Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., just made her presidential announcement and made life that much harder for Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.

Because if he wants the nomination, he will have to distinguish himself from her, and fast.

Both appeal to minority voters. Both captivate audiences with similarly inspiring stories about their upbringing. [...]

Unlike Booker though, Harris will say no to dark money. Multiple outlets report that she plans on rejecting assistance from super PACs as well as corporate dollars.

The clearest difference between the two so far, it could become a flash point in the coming primary fight where rejecting PAC money has become a badge of honor. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., built his 2016 campaign on small-dollar donations, rejecting most super PAC dollars and regularly whacking Hillary Clinton over her failure to do so. Harris is the latest in the 2020 crowd to follow in Sanders' footsteps.

What about union money? Presumably Harris would take it, "corporate" being a chosen word. Bernie will run again, it is a matter of time.

Booker taking corporate money? Links here, here, and here. "Better than Gillibrand," which applies to Harris and Booker, is not good enough. Not with actual progressives Warren and Sanders factored into things. Harris perhaps being better than others besides Warren and Bernie. A law enforcement background needs to be addressed, in terms of general popular appeal. These are not the Nixon years, Harris prosecuted, and marijuana legalization is an issue.

Saturday, January 19, 2019

Can there be any doubt: Bernie in 2020?

Despite a request to be on the press mailing list being declined by Our Revolution, keeping me on the solicitations list which is okay because the campaign will need financing and I can kick in multiples of twenty-seven bucks from time to time; the folks at OR were kind enough to forward a reminding link:

https://ourrevolution.com/press/

Readers are urged to bookmark that link. "News" is what it is called, but it's the press releases which anyone can follow. Hit that link, look at the recent items = THE MAN IS RUNNING, THE URGING BEING PRELIMINARY THEATER.

AND IT IS GOOD. BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON. BERNIE WILL WIN.

Elizabeth Warren is another great candidate, there will be many and early funding realities which will winnow things as was the case last cycle when, for instance, Jeb never caught the fire.

If a final decision comes down to Bernie or Lizzie, think how that can delight far more than "those guys" with their Ted and Donald pairing. Who else? Cory, Kamela, that woman who used Franken as her springboard, who? Tulsi?

2020 will prove interesting, how mainstream media will try to ignore and then undercut both Bernie and Lizzie. It will stink, but it will reflect how Bernie was treated when corporate media along with corporate donors favored losers, the Clinton spouses and the Podesta brothers. How mainstream corporate media reacts to Democrat challengers and to Trump and Pence will expose the bias there, which already is no real secret. MSNBC will be the most conflicted, wanting to appear as something other than same old, same old, part of the beltway crowd where money talks big time.

Whoring for mega-donor dollars was last cycle's governing tune. Now, Bernie and Lizzie each will need small donor love, that twenty-seven bucks on average kind, because some will be on vacation:

- please click this image and read it -

Look for the beloved letter recipient Saban family to favor Cory, Kristin, or Kamela in order to torpedo progressivism spoiling their party and Goldman Sachs will follow suit. If that level of obstruction to progress can be overcome, we may have the best President ever.