Bernie Sanders: The Middle Class Is My Establishment

The corporate press has dubbed Bernie Sanders the anti-establishment candidate (Healy, NYT), while maintaining Hillary Clinton cannot lose the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency (NYT).

Sanders had a message last night at the third Democratic debate hosted by ABC News in New Hampshire: The Middle class is my establishment; the special interests' establishment are ruining this county.

"[T]he same pundits lauding Clinton's lead currently in the polls are the same pundits who praised Clinton's lead in 2014 and 2007," noted H.L.Goodman in October.

Clinton and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz want a rigged primary.

Their efforts could prove to be another colossal misreading of what the base of the Democratic Party wants, ala 2008.

To illustrate the disdain towards Wasserman Schultz and Clinton, consider the MoveOn petition on what would typically be obscure inside-baseball: DNC list sharing, I/T frackups and viewing of lists.

As of early Sunday morning, the day after third debate, 282,283 people had signed the following statement demanding Wasserman Schultz and Clinton back down from attacking and sanctioning Sanders (they did):

We demand that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz immediately reinstate the Bernie Sanders campaign's access to the DNC's 50-state voter file, which is crucial for voter outreach in the last weeks before the first Democratic caucuses. Shutting down Sanders' tools to reach voters is an infringement on democracy.  

That's a lot of people demanding changes and promoting democracy in the Democratic Party.

Analysis Suggests Sanders Will Overtake Clinton

Excellent analysis in the Huffington Post by H.A. Goodman arguing why Bernie Sanders will overtake Hillary Clinton.

"[T]he same pundits lauding Clinton's lead currently in the polls are the same pundits who praised Clinton's lead in 2014 and 2007," notes Goodman.

Sanders without a SuperPac has risen faster and further to this point exceeding his own expectations, drawing huge crowds for months.

Clinton famously misread the 2007-08 campaign, ignoring the change election the American people wanted.

Now, Clinton is making similar mistakes, crowing about her pledged superdelegates, launching general election red-baiting and faux outrage attacks on Sanders while ignoring the fact the Democratic Party-voting electorate wishes to choose their next president.

Clinton wants a fixed primary.

Clinton is getting it through her ally, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who insists on scheduling only six sanctioned debates and threatening candidates not to appear in others as they try to take away the Democratic Presidential Primary from voters.

Six debates from the 25 in 2007-08.

The more democratic and open the primary, the more Clinton's perceived untrustworthy character, coziness with Wall Street and horrible record on foreign policy will doom Clinton's 2015-16 run.

Wasserman Schultz and Clinton realize Clinton v. Sanders means Sanders wins, and Clinton loses, hence the closed-off nature of the primary.

And Wall Street crashing the economy in 2007-08, who are Democratic voters going to trust, Sanders or Clinton?

To the extent the 2015-16 primary becomes a fix-is-in v. voters-decide campaign, Sanders wins.

Wasserman Schultz is quoted in a piece this week that she "wish[es] the Republicans would debate everyday" because they are so out of touch (WDET Radio, Wayne State University). Debating often is a democratic nicety Wasserman Schultz and Clinton deny the Democratic Party, an irony that did a fly-by over the DNC Chair.

Republicans are not the only ones out of touch.

The Guardian: Donald Trump Is Here to Stay in GOP-land

If Paddy Chayefsky ever lived to write about American electoral politics, it's unlikely even he could have imagined Donald Trump.

Yet, Trump is here to stay, Ben Jacobs writes convincingly in The Guardian today.

One can hope.

The sheer lunacy of Trump rips into the American political system the openings Bernie Sanders needs in a country hollowed-out, corrupt and approaching the tipping point of veering into a dystopian police-prosecutor state run by corporate goons and imbeciles.

Heard Bernie at a small, private talk in the Madison area in the late 1980s, and he talked and talked to an audience already convinced of the tenets behind his arguments. Cogent, brilliant and passionate, Bernie offered a needed dose of sanity.

Point is Bernie has been around the country working for decades.

The next time you hear Chris Matthews speak with confidence asserting Bernie Sanders is not serious, and is just so much water from the splash of a heavy object dropped into the electoral pool, you may want to consider Matthews has no idea what he's talking about—and Sanders does and has for decades.

Scott Walker—Another Day, Another Lie

Scott Walker in free fall, latest Aug-Sept 2015
Quinnipiac University Poll

It did not take long for Scott Walker to get up and lying today.

Appearing from Detroit on the Morning Joe program, Walker offered his own version of the legislative history of ObamaCare.

After first explaining his campaign meltdown as mere "shaking things up," Walker paid homage to dear leader Ronald Reagan and other Republican nostrums, before answering other questions.

"Democrats used 51 votes to pass ObamaCare," said Walker dodging a question asking if
Walker's supporting congressional Republicans' threats to close down the government if Congress does not defund Planned Parenthood.

Walker's point was not responsive, and is factually incorrect, another Walker lie.

Reality Land 

In reality land where the bold Wisconsin governor rarely visits, on December 24, 2009 the U.S. Senate passed ObamaCare (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)) 60-39 with one senator, (Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky)), not voting (New York Times). See also Library of Congress legislative history.

The ACA is also one of the most marked-up and deliberated pieces of legislation to ever pass Congress.

The 60 votes were necessary to stave off a Republican filibuster, in which only 41 votes dictated the fate of legislation.

The Democratic-led bill also included many Republican amendments and requested changes.

"The Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passe[d] The Affordable Health Choices Act [on July 15, 2009). The bipartisan bill includes more than 160 Republican amendments accepted during the month-long mark-up, one of the longest in congressional history," notes Emily Smith at CNN.

ObamaCare would have included the public option, defeated in the Senate Finance Committee in September 2009 after two Democratic senators who took massive donations from the health insurance industry defected and voted against the public option. (Pear and Calmes, NYT)

Sen. Joe Lieberman like Scott Walker, heavily supported by money from the health insurance industry, promised to filibuster any legislation with a public option that made it to the senate floor. (ThinkProgess)

After Senate Republicans refused an up-or-down vote on this historic legislation, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) acted.

In 2009, Senate Republicans plotted to obstruct not just health care reform, but any piece of legislation that would have helped the American people, the Republican rationale being if anything helped people, it could also politically benefit Obama. (MacAskill, The Guardian) (Grunwald, Time Magazine)

No one could reason with Republicans sabotaging America for political gain.

"In a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader Harry Reid says Democrats will use 'reconciliation,' needing only 51 votes, to pass the health care bill," notes Smith at CNN.

Again, to emphasize, the 60 votes were necessary to stave off a Republican filibuster, in which only 41 votes dictated the fate of the legislation.

The preeminent social historian of American medical care, Paul Starr, calls the ACA a "stunning historical achievement and the most important liberal reform since the 1960s." (Mal Contends)

ObameCare was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010.

Does Scott Walker read?

Bernie for Democracy; Trump for Racism and Birtherism

This is the golden age of political journalism, fortuitous as we are able to witness the slow-motion downfall of American democracy and efforts to save it.

All in with Chris Hayes, The Rachel Maddow Show (TRMS) and The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell feature a murderers' row of political analysis.

Yesterday is typical.

Amid the same traitor-terrorist-treason-socialist dictator rhetoric (joined in by Hillary Clinton's SuperPAC this accelerated election cycle) as the last presidential election comes two polar opposite on the mantel of simple decency: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

Sanders and Trump meeting in the general election is a distinct possibility as Clinton has again misread the election. This is not a 'change' election, it's a 'we're-sick-of your-shit' election.

TRMS and Sanders

Bernie Sanders offers a compelling defense of government for the people and by the people on TRMS in an exclusive interview.

Sanders excoriates the American rightwing accusing conservatives of 'a concerted attack against every major public institution.'

Video below.

Lawrence O'Donnell Show and Trump's Birtherism Comes Back

At the Lawrence O'Donnell show a piece features Donald Trump resorting to birtherism again yesterday in an extemporaneous, unscripted question-and-answer event in Rochester, New Hampshire. (Second video below)

Trump said before the very first question at the Rochester event, "This man, I like this guy," referring to the questioner.

The questioner said, "We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims. Our current President is one. We know he’s not even an American."

Trump responded, "We need this question," and laughed.

"We have [Muslim] training camps growing where when they want to kill us. That's my question, when can we get rid of it," the questioner asked Trump.

No problem.

Responding to the question, Trump said, "We're going to be looking at a lot of different things. A lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there. We're going to be looking at that and plenty of other things."

Somehow I really didn't expect Trump to call the guy a nut-job, racist, and an indecent human being. If there were ever time for Trump's insults, it was at this event in Rochester New Hampshire. (Tuohy, New Hampshire Union Leader)

McCain

O'Donnell noted a similar occurrence in 2008 and contrasted Trump's response with the response by Sen. John McCain who shot down a bigoted question in a similar setting when a woman said to McCain, "I don't trust Obama. I have read about him. He's an Arab." (another bad thing, to this woman's mind)

Reports CBS News in October 2008:

McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:
'No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about.'

O'Donnell's segment featured an interview with Trump’s Iowa campaign co-chair, Tana Goertz, who proceeded to melt under O'Donnell's questioning.

Trump's campaign released a statement to O'Donnell reading, "Christians need support in this country. Their religious liberty is at stake."

Incredible, no it's America today.

---
Bernie Sanders Interviewed on TRMS

Lawrence O'Donnell Show and Trump's Birtherism Comes Back

Scott Walker Says It's "Ridiculous" to Meet with Black Lives Matter

Fresh off a bizarre performance at the Des Monies Register soapbox in which Scott Walker refused to listen to any questions from black citizens gathered, and bellowed he is not "intimidated," a flustered Scott Walker veered into another bizarre response when asked if he would meet with members of Black Lives Matter.

"Asked at a ‘Politics and Eggs’ breakfast forum in Manchester on Friday if he would take some time to sit down with the African-American activists, Walker called the question 'ridiculous,' mocking the civil rights group," reports Raw Story (Boggioni), citing a dispatch from the Daily Mail (UK). (CNN) (Capital Times)

"I’m here to talk to voters in New Hampshire about things that matter,' Walker told the Daily Mail reporter.

No follow-up yet from the Walker campaign, but observers must be wondering why Walker didn't just say, 'sure, I would be happy to sit down and talk.' Video is below:

NYT Still out to Get Hillary

Like 10s of millions of Americans, I would love to see Bernie Sanders as president.

Like 10s of millions of Americans, I am repulsed by the New York Times' treatment of Hillary Clinton and the Times' latest faux scandal.

"Email Controversy Begins to Weigh on Hillary Clinton’s Allies," reads today's Times' First Draft column.

What weighs on most Americans, including Clinton's allies, is not the story pushed by the disingenuous and out-of-touch corporate news media for five months.

"Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress ... ," notes Vox (Allen) on the mainstream media's obsession with vacuity when covering Clinton.

Hillary supporters know progressives and activists who love Bernie would vote for Hillary if she becomes the nominee, out of the same sense of outrage that propelled Bill Clinton to a 70 percent approval rating after the Republican impeachment nonsense (abetted by the same corporate media attacking Hillary today), and which launched MoveOn as a force in the American political culture.

As we watch Donald Trump offer more craziness in light of the working hypothesis that Trump might indeed be a Democratic plant in the GOP presidential primary, a contemporary variant of H.L. Mencken's observation of the American public is appropriate: 'No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence and craziness of the Republican Party's base.'

The same could be said of the corporate media's obsession, and one wonders if Hillary's allies fed the 'email scandal' story to the Times (Michael S. Schmidt (March 2, 2105)) in the first place, so Hillary later can put out the winning message: This garbage is what the media and Republicans think you care about; not your family, not jobs, not liberty, not equality, not opportunity, and not the future of this country.

Sanity on Scott Walker's Yelling "I'm Not Intimidated"

"Unintimidated! I am not intimidated by you, sir, or by anyone else out there."​

Thus shouted Scott Walker to an American citizen in Iowa yesterday.

Is anyone falling for Walker's schtick?

The right-leaning Wisconsin State Journal is commenting and reporting uncritically on Walker's affront to representative democracy, and the story for them is not whether Walker is inauthentic and a pathological liar.

Reading this newspaper every morning is becoming a controversy in our household as we discuss whether we should cancel our longtime subscription in light of the downward trajectory of the news and editorial columns on the Scott Walker run for the presidency.

At what point are we supporting a propaganda sheet increasingly devoid of facts and analysis?

Haven't decided though the Wisconsin State Journal—to survive as a hardcopy newspaper—refused to endorse Scott Walker last year citing in part his divisive approach to governing and campaigning.

For some sanity on Scott Walker's imbecilic approach to political dialogue, check out Jake's Economic TA Funhouse, Charlie Pierce from Esquire and Jeff Simpson at CognitiveDissidence.

Notes Pierce: "The fearsome gentleman of whom Walker was unafraid was a skinny guy in the middle of the scrum, holding up a sign suggesting that, perhaps, Walker should not be allowed to do to the country what he's done to Wisconsin. Standing on stage, with Iowa State troopers on either side, Scott Walker, American He-man, boldly faced down this sign-waving Bakuninite. The rest of the crowd went wild. Later, Kelly O'Donnell [NBC News] pronounced herself charmed by the confrontation.​"

Obama Denounces New GOP Voting Laws, Says DoJ Is Investigating

Big government is pretty big when it halts your right to even vote.

By Ari Berman

In an interview with Philadelphia radio host Michael Smerconish last week, President Obama for the first time denounced the wave of new laws passed by Republicans designed to restrict the right to vote for millions of Americans.

Said the president:

I will say that my big priority is making sure that as many people are participating in our democracy as possible. Some of these moves in some of the other states that we’ve seen try to make it tougher to vote, restricting ballot access, making it hard on seniors, making it hard on young people.

I think that’s a big mistake, and I have made sure that our Justice Department is taking a look at what’s being done across the country to ensure that people aren’t being denied access to the franchise.

The fact that Obama invoked the Justice Department is very important, since the department has the authority under the Voting Rights Act to approve, deny or modify these laws. “The Justice Department should be much more aggressive in areas covered by the Voting Rights Act,” Congressman John Lewis told me recently.

There are signs that is starting to happen. The Justice Department recently sent pointed letters to Texas and South Carolina, two states that have strict new photo ID requirements, asking for more information on what kind of impact the laws will have on minority voters. And last month, the department found that Texas’s new redistricting maps for the state house and US House of Representatives violated the Voting Rights Act by shortchanging Hispanic residents. (A three-panel federal district court in Washington, which also has authority under the VRA, is now reviewing the Texas maps.)

Career lawyers in the civil rights division of the Justice Department, who were frequently sidelined and overruled during the Bush Administration, are reasserting their authority and independence under Obama. They may be the only ones who can halt the GOP’s war on voting.