Monday, April 15, 2019
ASSHOLES. People I disagree with and whose motives strike me as mean, vindictive and crass. [UPDATED]
Link, identifying them.
image
UPDATE: Bought and paid forASSHOLES people I disagree with and whose motives I question, appearing as if nursing a grudge.
FURTHER: Will they back Biden? Gillibrand? Or simply stand around slinging mud out of spite?
UPDATE NOTE: The DownWithTyranny site published a "Bernie confronts" follow-up report, here.
UPDATE NOTE: Below is the online letter Bernie sent to the people I disagree with and who appear to be nursing a grudge from 2016 when Bernie was the most compelling, progressive, and trustworthy candidate then running for president.
[click the thumbnails to enlarge and read]
FURTHER: Be suspicious of the Think Progress website; per the "Bernie confronts" post:
[bolding and links in original] Don't let the sack of snakes thrown onto the table fool you - it is Dem Party corporatists who threw the sack there.
It will be most informative if this astroturf [phony grassroot] operation backs any one particular 2020 candidate, either by overtly naming and endorsing one, or by trashing and mud slinging at the best of the others - make that the rest of the others who may down the line have traction going into 2020 primary/caucusing. Shun their choice - the big money talking choice.
image
UPDATE: Bought and paid for
FURTHER: Will they back Biden? Gillibrand? Or simply stand around slinging mud out of spite?
UPDATE NOTE: The DownWithTyranny site published a "Bernie confronts" follow-up report, here.
UPDATE NOTE: Below is the online letter Bernie sent to the people I disagree with and who appear to be nursing a grudge from 2016 when Bernie was the most compelling, progressive, and trustworthy candidate then running for president.
[click the thumbnails to enlarge and read]
FURTHER: Be suspicious of the Think Progress website; per the "Bernie confronts" post:
by Thomas Neuburger
[...] Well, the highly Clintonist, highly corporate establishment is at it again, in the form of the corrupt Center for American Progress (CAP) and its online publication ThinkProgress. (For more on their corruption, see also here and here.)
ThinkProgress published a video critical of Sanders, as Lee Fang (who also delves into their corruption) explains here:
The Center for American Progress, which sponsors ThinkProgress, is led by board president Tom Daschle, who is a registered lobbyist for Comcast CVS Health-Aetna, and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. TP used to criticize those companies, now they carry their water.
— Lee Fang (@lhfang) April 11, 2019
In response to that video Sanders sent CAP a letter, saying in part:
Center for American Progress leader Neera Tanden repeatedly calls for unity while simultaneously maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas. I worry that the corporate money CAP is receiving is inordinately and inappropriately influencing the role it is playing in the progressive movement. (emphasis mine)
Team Sanders then went a whole lot further than that in a public fundraising letter, parts of which are reproduced below. [...] The letter also names a few of the companies and countries that bankroll CAP — Walmart, Bank of America, Blue Cross, Blackstone, the UAE. He could have listed a great many more. There are countless stories emerging from former ThinkProgress writers about CAP leadership squelching aggressive reporting because their reports were negatively affecting CAP fundraising. Read this twitter thread by former ThinkProgress reporter Zaid Jilani to see some of those. There are others as well.
Bernie Sanders is not backing down this time. Unlike 2016, this will be a battle with the enemy named out loud and its deeds detailed. Looks like the fight, the one our country has been avoiding for years, is finally on.
[bolding and links in original] Don't let the sack of snakes thrown onto the table fool you - it is Dem Party corporatists who threw the sack there.
It will be most informative if this astroturf [phony grassroot] operation backs any one particular 2020 candidate, either by overtly naming and endorsing one, or by trashing and mud slinging at the best of the others - make that the rest of the others who may down the line have traction going into 2020 primary/caucusing. Shun their choice - the big money talking choice.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Bernie on the camaign trail, in Pittsburgh, attracting the same big crowds as last cycle, and telling the truth about a prominent liar, and more.
YouTube. This link. He has to be the candidate. Theft of that from Bernie would be a theft from each of us, and do you want to be robbed?
The crowd is predominantly young, under 40 by appearances, and predominantly white. Nina Turner is working to get the message known within black communities, and people such as Kieth Ellison are there doing the same in Minnesota where I live. Ellison who advocates a fifty state Democratic Party approach as he'd have done if leadiing DNC. Bernie has good people backing him; Trump has thugs.
Other Democratic primary contestants are not without quality and worthwhile supporters. Biden? Whose choice is he, really? Big donors are not a part of any solution. Grassroots have to be respected and successful, now is the time the chance is ripe. Help the effort, or later wish you had.
Watch Bernie. Not an untrue thing. You can disagree on ideas, but in contrast to the White House occupant, truth is refreshing.
The crowd is predominantly young, under 40 by appearances, and predominantly white. Nina Turner is working to get the message known within black communities, and people such as Kieth Ellison are there doing the same in Minnesota where I live. Ellison who advocates a fifty state Democratic Party approach as he'd have done if leadiing DNC. Bernie has good people backing him; Trump has thugs.
Other Democratic primary contestants are not without quality and worthwhile supporters. Biden? Whose choice is he, really? Big donors are not a part of any solution. Grassroots have to be respected and successful, now is the time the chance is ripe. Help the effort, or later wish you had.
Watch Bernie. Not an untrue thing. You can disagree on ideas, but in contrast to the White House occupant, truth is refreshing.
Katie Porter is yet another of the first-term House members elected in the 2018 election. She has generated less publicity than other first-term Reps, but has brains and chutzpah and is on the Financial Services Committee after a career as law professor and consumer finance reform advocate.
She studied at Harvard Law School under Elizabeth Warren, with a stellar career before being elected. [UPDATE: See, e.g., WaPo, here]
Campaign website About page. Wikipedia. Official House homepage. Websearch. From the latter link you can see this person hit the ground running, and she is ideally suited to represent the public interest on the Financial Services Committee. There were some smart California voters, when offered a real first class choice. Pay attention to see on an ongoing basis a skilled practitioner at work, for us.
Campaign website About page. Wikipedia. Official House homepage. Websearch. From the latter link you can see this person hit the ground running, and she is ideally suited to represent the public interest on the Financial Services Committee. There were some smart California voters, when offered a real first class choice. Pay attention to see on an ongoing basis a skilled practitioner at work, for us.
More on Cheri Bustos and her DCCC leadership.
bible ... flags
Leaving Sinclair Lewis fact-checking aside, the key to this YouTube item, it was 4 views before I found it. The text appears to be from Politico, although it is unclear whether the YouTube post is Politico's, or that of a third-party. While playing background music the item cycles through a few images, repeating this one several times, as the text changes. From that Politico item,
The background image used at the start of this post appears to be from here. More YouTube views, here, where the Politico text is also used, with editorializing against Bustos/DCCC.
There is a Reddit thread, captioned, "‘We don’t have time for games’: Cheri Bustos takes on the new left." It uses the Politico image and the quote from Cedric Richmond, which is ironic in that the House had time for its H.R. 1 (see post below this one), and that time arguably was for nothing except playing games. The Reddit comments are unfavorable toward Bustos.
Going from opinion to substance, freebeacon.com posts, "Justice Democrats Organize Opposition to DCCC Policy Protecting Incumbents - BY: Cameron Cawthorne - April 5, 2019 11:30 am." That report cites a new page of renegade consultancies who affirmatively defy the DCCC ban; so you have that defiance together with Ocasio Cortez suggesting that individual progressives freeze out DCCC to a reliance solely upon its big money donors and its tithing of House membership, with Ocasio Cortez saying she' uncertain whether she'll pay the share she's tithed. If Bustos generates less money by inflaming the issue she's in trouble, and that could happen.
Cawthorne wrote [links from the original], about a counter-DCCC "blacklist" site Justice Democrats launched, https://dcccblacklist.com/:
Dueling beltway consultancies? Had Bustos simply allowed an unwritten policy to continue, instead of enscrolling it as written policy, the SNAFU might not have happened. Whether it's best to air out the issue publicly or not, that is what Bustos decision making yielded. Bustos seems ambitious. "A lean and hungry look," as was once written by one attuned to human nature. Given the Senate and Trump as roadblocks to any actual House majority substantive action, perhaps the coverage of the Bustos business is proportional to its actual importance; i.e., the Democrats in control of the House cannot - yet - reform anything. The positioning going into the 2020 election is hence what is going on, and Bustos is sucking up to incumbents; however capable they may or may not be. It looks to be a power grab attempt to embroil Pelosi in the Bustos stew, while Pelosi simply tries to hold things together somewhat more discretely. It is far easier to fault Bustos.
___________UPDATE____________
Down With Tyranny, on Bustos. In general the site is covering things well, homepage, here.
Do you suppose the big money Dem donor pool has actively been squeezing Bustos, "If we buy them we want mileage, not any uncertain lesser thing"? "We want years to amortize the down payment, and in turn will keep up annual service fees"? "Years give the biggest return on investment; ROI being our thing"?
The guess here, she's doing it with a minimal but non-zero bit of input that way. Just being who she is, going where her ambitions lead her. Not blind ambition. Dead-end ambition, perhaps going to hell in a bucket but consultants on contract at least enjoying the ride.
FURTHER: The Bustos - Tyranny item begins:
Then it suggests how to read the earlier linked Politico item, as to Politico specifics. Is the language too over the top? It is how Down With Tyranny is written, so remember, over the top does not mean actually wrong in argument or detail. Read it with an open mind, that way. Truth shows itself, regardless of rhetorical style.
FURTHER: Bustos and allied House cohorts have taken one self-touting step in the right direction, but their letter should have been aimed at the entirety/enormity of any/all DHS and ICE money being flowed to privateers. The letter down-parsed the size of the thing.
FURTHER: One of the better debunking of the mythological Cheri Bustos spun for us in the Politico item, Politico text first, the quote within a quote, and DWT rejoinder:
That looks to be an ideal place for a real Democratic Party progressive to primary. It looks like Joe Crowley land, except not a primarily Hispanic demographic carrying an establishment regular white guy; but more of a Blue Dog pound. Still, someone offering a Bernie agenda should give it theo old college try. A Bustos defeat there would be a Cantor-like occurrence, because it would not have the Crowley "changing demographics" excuse set in place. It would be a total repudiation of big money DCCC mindset. Especially if the challenge were conducted on that - get big money influence mongering out the door policy norm - as one of several progressive-change issues. Bustos ousted, would be other than business as usual. And even should a primary challenge fail, at least it would be Bustos still rather than a seat lost, somehow, to Repubicans. It would either way on a primary keep that seat in the "razor-thin" majority Bustos says she'd like protected. Just, protect it with a better human being.
Leaving Sinclair Lewis fact-checking aside, the key to this YouTube item, it was 4 views before I found it. The text appears to be from Politico, although it is unclear whether the YouTube post is Politico's, or that of a third-party. While playing background music the item cycles through a few images, repeating this one several times, as the text changes. From that Politico item,
Cheri Bustos takes on the new left - The DCCC chairwoman is standing firm against a progressive backlash. By HEATHER CAYGLE and LAURA BARRÓN-LÓPEZ, 04/04/2019 05:03 AM EDT
[...] “We don’t have time for games, we don’t have time for hugs and kisses,” Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said in an interview, praising Bustos for taking a hard line to protect the party’s incumbents ahead of a difficult 2020 campaign.
[...] In a heated meeting with Bustos last week, Pocan, Jayapal and Ro Khanna of California voiced their displeasure. Bustos stood her ground and appeared unwilling to change course. Khanna came out of the meeting angry, vowing to fight the policy until it was nixed.
But in the days since, progressives have shifted tactics, saying they want to keep the debate private, with Khanna saying, “these things take time.”
“We’re having ongoing conversations, but dealing with it in the public is counterproductive,” Pocan said, when asked whether Ocasio-Cortez’s tweets to her 3.8 million followers was helpful. “I’m dealing with it in the responsible way to make sure we get rid of the policy and that means dealing with it within the family.”
Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez told POLITICO on Wednesday she doesn’t have any additional plans to blast the DCCC on Twitter and said she’s “not sure” whether she is going to pay her member dues to the campaign arm.
Though Pocan and Jayapal insist the conversations are not over with Bustos are not over, the three lawmakers appear to be talking past one another. Bustos said she would ask progressives to “play the long game.”
“If we’re going to be successful as Democrats, and going into 2020 with a very, very fragile majority, we got to be on the same team,” said Bustos, adding that the new policy ensures the DCCC will spend “every cent we can to hang on to our majority and not work against ourselves.”
While running for the DCCC post, Bustos pitched herself as a Democrat with a unique ability to appeal to Trump voters while not shying away from taking on the president. The fourth-term lawmaker hails from a rural district in the northwestern corner of Illinois that Trump won in 2016 even as it reelected Bustos by 20 points.
The background image used at the start of this post appears to be from here. More YouTube views, here, where the Politico text is also used, with editorializing against Bustos/DCCC.
There is a Reddit thread, captioned, "‘We don’t have time for games’: Cheri Bustos takes on the new left." It uses the Politico image and the quote from Cedric Richmond, which is ironic in that the House had time for its H.R. 1 (see post below this one), and that time arguably was for nothing except playing games. The Reddit comments are unfavorable toward Bustos.
Going from opinion to substance, freebeacon.com posts, "Justice Democrats Organize Opposition to DCCC Policy Protecting Incumbents - BY: Cameron Cawthorne - April 5, 2019 11:30 am." That report cites a new page of renegade consultancies who affirmatively defy the DCCC ban; so you have that defiance together with Ocasio Cortez suggesting that individual progressives freeze out DCCC to a reliance solely upon its big money donors and its tithing of House membership, with Ocasio Cortez saying she' uncertain whether she'll pay the share she's tithed. If Bustos generates less money by inflaming the issue she's in trouble, and that could happen.
Cawthorne wrote [links from the original], about a counter-DCCC "blacklist" site Justice Democrats launched, https://dcccblacklist.com/:
"The DCCC is using their financial leverage to intimidate and blacklist many hardworking people in our movement in a blatant attempt to protect a handful of out-of-touch incumbents," the [counter-] DCCC blacklist website reads. "We’re launching The Blacklist to fight back and provide potential primary challengers with a database of go-to vendors, organizations, and consultants who will continue to support efforts to usher in a new generation of leaders into the Democratic Party."
Some of the groups listed on the website, which aren't abiding by the new DCCC policy, are Think Rubix, Democracy for America, Indivisible, Left Rising, and Working families.
Bustos, the DCCC chief, argues the new policy isn't specifically targeting progressives and that she isn't punishing consultants for their past work with incumbents, but progressives aren't convinced.
Progressive Caucus co-chairs Mark Pocan (D., Wis.) and Pramila Jayapal (D.,Wash), and caucus member Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.) met with Bustos last month to voice their opposition against the new policy and demanded that it be reversed, but Bustos said she would not change the policy, according to Politico.
While Bustos hasn't showed signs she will be reversing the policy, Pocan told Politico he believes they are still having an "open conversation" and "there’s more to come" with their conversation.
"Let's be clear. If this policy remains in place, it will mean that we will not allow new Ayanna Pressleys or AOCs to emerge. It's simply wrong," Khanna told the Intercept. "It's also hypocritical for a party that champions strong antitrust. The DCCC is acting as a monopoly by saying that anyone who does business with them can't do business with any competition. It's the classic antitrust violation and an unfair restraint on trade. Many progressives in Congress will fight until this rule is changed. We stand for reform in Congress and reform of the Democratic Party machinery to make sure they prioritize our voters and the grassroots."
Ocasio-Cortez has vocally opposed the new policy on Twitter and has advised small-dollar donors to donate directly to Democratic primary challengers.
"The @DCCC’s new rule to blacklist+boycott anyone who does business w/ primary challengers is extremely divisive & harmful to the party," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. "My recommendation, if you’re a small-dollar donor: pause your donations to DCCC & give directly to swing candidates instead."
Dueling beltway consultancies? Had Bustos simply allowed an unwritten policy to continue, instead of enscrolling it as written policy, the SNAFU might not have happened. Whether it's best to air out the issue publicly or not, that is what Bustos decision making yielded. Bustos seems ambitious. "A lean and hungry look," as was once written by one attuned to human nature. Given the Senate and Trump as roadblocks to any actual House majority substantive action, perhaps the coverage of the Bustos business is proportional to its actual importance; i.e., the Democrats in control of the House cannot - yet - reform anything. The positioning going into the 2020 election is hence what is going on, and Bustos is sucking up to incumbents; however capable they may or may not be. It looks to be a power grab attempt to embroil Pelosi in the Bustos stew, while Pelosi simply tries to hold things together somewhat more discretely. It is far easier to fault Bustos.
___________UPDATE____________
Down With Tyranny, on Bustos. In general the site is covering things well, homepage, here.
Do you suppose the big money Dem donor pool has actively been squeezing Bustos, "If we buy them we want mileage, not any uncertain lesser thing"? "We want years to amortize the down payment, and in turn will keep up annual service fees"? "Years give the biggest return on investment; ROI being our thing"?
The guess here, she's doing it with a minimal but non-zero bit of input that way. Just being who she is, going where her ambitions lead her. Not blind ambition. Dead-end ambition, perhaps going to hell in a bucket but consultants on contract at least enjoying the ride.
FURTHER: The Bustos - Tyranny item begins:
"Cheri Bustos," they wrote of the woman quickly turning herself into her party's next Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "isn’t afraid of the insurgent left." That's so cute! I wonder if Bustos paid extra for that. "The chairwoman of House Democrats’ campaign arm has found herself in a very messy-- and public-- spat with progressives over the past week and a half. But the Midwestern moderate"-- ah, yes, Politico's favorite put down of progressives: calling corrupt conservatives like Blue Dog Bustos a "moderate," the most admired political term among American voters. What makes Bustos a moderate? That she votes with Republicans? That she opposes the most popular Democratic initiatives of the time-- like Medicare-For-All, free state colleges, the $15 minimum wage, and the Green New Dream? In Beltway conservative circles, opposing those initiatives is what makes someone "serious" and, apparently, "moderate."
Bustos, they continued "is refusing to budge, despite drawing ire from prominent progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has encouraged her millions of social media followers to halt donations to the campaign committee in retaliation." [Notice how the boogey man was just created in the narrative, the boogey man who the "moderate" shall vanquish.] Let's see what can they do to make Bustos sound all-American and heroic?
Then it suggests how to read the earlier linked Politico item, as to Politico specifics. Is the language too over the top? It is how Down With Tyranny is written, so remember, over the top does not mean actually wrong in argument or detail. Read it with an open mind, that way. Truth shows itself, regardless of rhetorical style.
FURTHER: Bustos and allied House cohorts have taken one self-touting step in the right direction, but their letter should have been aimed at the entirety/enormity of any/all DHS and ICE money being flowed to privateers. The letter down-parsed the size of the thing.
FURTHER: One of the better debunking of the mythological Cheri Bustos spun for us in the Politico item, Politico text first, the quote within a quote, and DWT rejoinder:
[... Politico being quoted]
While running for the DCCC post, Bustos pitched herself as a Democrat with a unique ability to appeal to Trump voters while not shying away from taking on the president. The fourth-term lawmaker hails from a rural district in the northwestern corner of Illinois that Trump won in 2016 even as it reelected Bustos by 20 points.
Only a Democrat as tragically lacking as Hillary could lose that district, which was gerrymandered by the Democratic-controlled state legislature so that Bustos would never lose her seat. Hillary's 1 point loss to Trump brought the PVI down to D+3, hardly the red district the Bustos cheering squad makes it out to be. Obama beat McCain there by a whopping 60.0% to 38.5% and then beat Romney 57.6-40.6%. Last year Bustos beat Republican Bill Fawell 142,659 (62.1%) to 87,090 (37.9%). Politico -- and most House Dems -- are too dull-witted to look into the bullshit Bustos has spewed about her epic battle to win the hicks in Trump country. IL-17 may not have embraced Hillary, but this district was drawn for Democrats, and very successfully so. You want Bustos to teach you how to win in a red district? All she can tell you is to make sure your state legislature gerrymanders the Republicans out of it and into IL-18, where the PVI suddenly shot up from a stable R+11 to a blood red R+16. Easy as pie. Now elect me DCCC chair too.
That looks to be an ideal place for a real Democratic Party progressive to primary. It looks like Joe Crowley land, except not a primarily Hispanic demographic carrying an establishment regular white guy; but more of a Blue Dog pound. Still, someone offering a Bernie agenda should give it theo old college try. A Bustos defeat there would be a Cantor-like occurrence, because it would not have the Crowley "changing demographics" excuse set in place. It would be a total repudiation of big money DCCC mindset. Especially if the challenge were conducted on that - get big money influence mongering out the door policy norm - as one of several progressive-change issues. Bustos ousted, would be other than business as usual. And even should a primary challenge fail, at least it would be Bustos still rather than a seat lost, somehow, to Repubicans. It would either way on a primary keep that seat in the "razor-thin" majority Bustos says she'd like protected. Just, protect it with a better human being.
Saturday, April 13, 2019
Does your bullshit meter pin out on this one? Using USA Today coverage as a vehicle, how does the propagada thing, House Resolution 1, ring to you in light of DCCC stifling primary challengers or trying to, and its taking lobby money? Bustos voted for H.R. 1, so go figure if it's bona fide unless/until Bustos is primaried out of office. [UPDATED]
Earlier Crabgrass posting on DCCC needs no repeating. Open with an image:
With the image source being a report on this "for the People" thing; don't bullshit the people, please. It is unbecoming for leadership to do so.
This for show business was passed knowing it would be D.O.A. in the Senate because McConnell had said exactly that, yet the item passed on Dem majority party lines in the House, taking up time that could have been spent on real business, given how the highfalutin thing was only for show. Bustos/DCCC working to discredit it at the same time as an unbelieved cynical token; the tokenism being evidenced by the Bustos/DCCC disdain heaped on the people's chance to get better than bought incumbency via primary challenges of too comfortable incumbents.
The USA Today item (dated March 8, 2019 describing H.R. 1), from which the image was taken, can be read in its entirety, while it states in part:
[links in original] From that point, the USA Today item extols bill provisions; even with it stated up front the thing was going nowhere and hence suggesting it was only for show. Reporting elsewhere critiquing the DCCC decision making is consonant with "only for show," and dissonant with "meant at all seriously."
Why did they bother? Weigh in mind the Pelosi quote:
Given the DCCC mischief, and Pelosi seeming keenly fine with it, one can only conclude the key Pelosi word in that sentence is "believe."
______________UPDATE_____________
There is YouTube reactive analysis about Obama surfacing from retirement wealth and comfort to say, go slow, learn the process. Here and here, each using the same Obama surfacing polimics delivered in Berlin.
Compare one of the new voices, here.
This H.R. 1 post can fit well in the light of Obama days and ways, as they unfolded. Using his sloganeering; selling HOPE and doing business as usual, warts and all, while selling CHANGE worked then, but made us wiser.
HOPE pitched at us with business as usual is exactly what H.R. 1 embodies, Pelosi and all knowing well that it is exactly what the theater was done to achieve. We want the CHANGE part, the reality, not the HOPE.
If the Pelosi and Bustos folks think business as usual with a cherry atop with a flag stuck in it suffices, that's pure bullshit. And the two video critiques of Obama ring true while the House with its H.R. 1 brief opening excursion from business as usual rings wholly and cynically false. Indulging in falsehood serves nobody well. It might be self deluding for the House Democratic caucus, a doubtful possibility, but the people are not deluded. They, instead are sick and tired of bullshit being served them while those wielding wealth get serviced, with gusto.
Why would "go slow," and incrementalism satisfy anybody? If CHANGE is not happening now, it needs to be goosed into happening. As Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead."
NOW. CHANGE either is now, or it is not CHANGE, but less, and less is insufficient.
SELLING "HOPE" IN THE ABSENCE OF "CHANGE" IS INSUFFICIENT.
 |
| Only an Act. image source, here |
With the image source being a report on this "for the People" thing; don't bullshit the people, please. It is unbecoming for leadership to do so.
This for show business was passed knowing it would be D.O.A. in the Senate because McConnell had said exactly that, yet the item passed on Dem majority party lines in the House, taking up time that could have been spent on real business, given how the highfalutin thing was only for show. Bustos/DCCC working to discredit it at the same time as an unbelieved cynical token; the tokenism being evidenced by the Bustos/DCCC disdain heaped on the people's chance to get better than bought incumbency via primary challenges of too comfortable incumbents.
The USA Today item (dated March 8, 2019 describing H.R. 1), from which the image was taken, can be read in its entirety, while it states in part:
The House passed a sweeping anti-corruption and government ethics package Friday [March 5, 2019]that would fundamentally reshape how campaigns are run, how elections are conducted and how officeholders conduct themselves.
The measure, known as the For The People Act or H.R. 1' [...] was approved 234-193 along party lines.
"H.R. 1 restores the people's faith that government works for the public interest, the people's interest, not the special interest," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday morning on the steps of the U.S. Capitol surrounded by members of her caucus. It "is fundamental to a democracy that people believe that actions taken here will be in their interest."
The bill has no chance to become law. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said it's a "terrible bill" that he won't give any floor time.
GOP critics say the measure is an unconstitutional maneuver that would enable voter fraud, saddle taxpayers with unnecessary costs and tilt elections in favor of Democrats.
"This bill is a Democrat push to elect more Democrats and to put more money into the pockets of members of Congress and anyone running for election ... under the guise of campaign finance reform," said Rodney Davis, R-Ill., the top Republican on the Committee on House Administration, which handled the bill.
[links in original] From that point, the USA Today item extols bill provisions; even with it stated up front the thing was going nowhere and hence suggesting it was only for show. Reporting elsewhere critiquing the DCCC decision making is consonant with "only for show," and dissonant with "meant at all seriously."
Why did they bother? Weigh in mind the Pelosi quote:
It "is fundamental to a democracy that people believe that actions taken here will be in their interest."
Given the DCCC mischief, and Pelosi seeming keenly fine with it, one can only conclude the key Pelosi word in that sentence is "believe."
______________UPDATE_____________
There is YouTube reactive analysis about Obama surfacing from retirement wealth and comfort to say, go slow, learn the process. Here and here, each using the same Obama surfacing polimics delivered in Berlin.
Compare one of the new voices, here.
This H.R. 1 post can fit well in the light of Obama days and ways, as they unfolded. Using his sloganeering; selling HOPE and doing business as usual, warts and all, while selling CHANGE worked then, but made us wiser.
HOPE pitched at us with business as usual is exactly what H.R. 1 embodies, Pelosi and all knowing well that it is exactly what the theater was done to achieve. We want the CHANGE part, the reality, not the HOPE.
If the Pelosi and Bustos folks think business as usual with a cherry atop with a flag stuck in it suffices, that's pure bullshit. And the two video critiques of Obama ring true while the House with its H.R. 1 brief opening excursion from business as usual rings wholly and cynically false. Indulging in falsehood serves nobody well. It might be self deluding for the House Democratic caucus, a doubtful possibility, but the people are not deluded. They, instead are sick and tired of bullshit being served them while those wielding wealth get serviced, with gusto.
Why would "go slow," and incrementalism satisfy anybody? If CHANGE is not happening now, it needs to be goosed into happening. As Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead."
NOW. CHANGE either is now, or it is not CHANGE, but less, and less is insufficient.
SELLING "HOPE" IN THE ABSENCE OF "CHANGE" IS INSUFFICIENT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)