DECEMBER 23 AND 24, 2019
NEWS AND VIEWS
HERE ARE THREE EXCELLENT PIECES FROM COMMONDREAMS.ORG, ON
VARIOUS SUBJECTS PERTINENT TO AMERICAN LIFE AND / OR BERNIE SANDERS.
DID YOU KNOW THAT DEAR LEADER HAS "SNUCK IN" WHEN WE WEREN’T
LOOKING AND PUT IN A PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE COVERAGE FOR SOME DISABILITIES NOW
INCLUDED UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY? THERE IS A SITE LINK IN THIS ARTICLE ON WHICH
TO REGISTER A PUBLIC COMPLAINT AGAINST THIS PROPOSED MEASURE. THE DEADLINE TO
DO THAT IS JANUARY 17, 2019. I HOPE SOME READERS WILL GO ONLINE AND DO
THAT BEFORE THE 17TH. THE URL FOR THAT IS: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=SSA-2018-0026-0001. I JUST SENT MINE, AND PLACED A COPY OF IT BELOW THIS ARTICLE, SO YOU CAN SEE
HOW EASY IT IS.
Published on
Monday, December 23, 2019
byCommon Dreams
'Cutting Social Security Is Murder': Flood of Public
Outrage Greets Trump Proposal to Slash Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands
"We cannot let Trump get away with this cruelty. An
attack on any part of Social Security is an attack on the entire system."
byJake Johnson, staff writer
PHOTOGRAPH -- Protestors rally against Social Security cuts
on December 10, 2012 in Doral, Florida. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
"This policy change is abhorrent and absolutely
unjustifiable."
"We all know that the cruelty is the point with this
administration, but this sinks to yet another low."
"This would be a crushing blow to me and my
family."
Those are just a few of the more than 1,700 official comments
members of the U.S. public have left on President Donald Trump's proposed
Social Security rule change, which could strip lifesaving disability benefits
from hundreds of thousands of people.
The proposal received hardly any media attention when it
was first published in the Federal Register in November. But recent reporting
on the proposed rule change, as well as outrage from progressive Social
Security advocates, sparked a flood of public condemnation and calls for
the Trump administration to reverse course.
Backlash against the proposal can be seen in the public
comment section for the rule, where self-identified physicians, people with
disabilities, social workers, and others have condemned the change as monstrous
and potentially deadly. The number of public comments has ballooned in recent
days, going from less than 200 to more than 1,700 in a week.
The public comment period ends on January 17, 2020. Comments
can be submitted here.
"Cutting Social Security is murder and this immoral administration
knows it," wrote one commenter. "I will fight it every way I
can."
A commenter who identified as Karla Kirchner said Social
Security is her "only source of income."
"If I lose my checks, there will be nothing left to
keep me alive," Kirchner wrote.
The Trump administration's proposal would add another layer
of complexity to the process of obtaining Social Security Disability Insurance
(SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.
If implemented, the rule change would require people
categorized by the federal government as Step 5 recipients—typically older
individuals with serious physical ailments or mental illness—and others to re-prove
their benefit eligibility every two years.
Critics and policy experts warned that the goal
of imposing more onerous eligibility requirements on disabled Social Security
recipients is to slash people's benefits. An estimated 4.4 million
people would be subject to the new requirement if the Trump
administration's proposal takes effect, according to the Philadelphia
Inquirer.
Alex Lawson, executive director of progressive advocacy group Social
Security Works, wrote in an op-ed last week that "there is no
justification for this policy."
"The United States already has some of the strictest
eligibility criteria for disability benefits in the world," wrote
Lawson. "More than half of all claims are denied."
SocialSecurityWorks
✔
@SSWorks
The Trump Administration is trying to cut #SocialSecurity benefits
for hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities.
We cannot let Trump get away with this cruelty. An attack
on any part of Social Security is an attack on the entire
system.https://www.salon.com/2019/12/20/the-trump-administration-has-just-declared-war-on-social-security_partner/
…
127
9:02 AM - Dec 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
149 people are talking about this
Lawson urged members of the public to call their elected
officials and leave a comment on the Trump administration's proposal
because "if they are allowed to get away with this attack, it will be
only the beginning."
"They want to destroy every part of Social
Security, including retirement benefits, and turn it over to their criminal
friends on Wall Street. We must stop Trump's plan," Lawson said. "If
we let the politicians in Washington, D.C., take away some people's earned
benefits, it means they can take away all of our earned benefits."
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.
Your comment was submitted successfully!
Your Comment Tracking Number: 1k3-9e1d-dzqv
Email Receipt Tool Tip
Your comment:
Comment:
I get a monthly SS retirement payment of just over $1,000 a
month, and with my income adjusted rent at a Jacksonville Housing Authority
residence, I get by. For about two years I have experienced falls which I
interpreted as weakened muscles and joints, as I am also advanced in age.
In March of this year I had a particularly bad fall,
landing on my back. My already existing scoliosis and degenerative disc pain
was exacerbated by the fall, and I was diagnosed at the emergency room when it
happened as having "normal pressure hydrocephalus." In the hospital I
had a shunt placed in the brain to drain the fluid and after two weeks was
allowed to go to a rehabilitation facility. Now, as a continuing fall risk, I
keep a cane by my bed to get up with, and I use a Rollator walker every time I
go out of my apartment for a medical appointment or shopping trip. I depend on
a city transportation service for the disabled, so I am now officially
classified as disabled.
While I am not personally on the SSI benefit, I do know
what it is to be unable to go to a doctor or buy medicine and groceries without
help. If my SS were to be cut, I don't know what I would do. That and a monthly
$52.00 pension from a job are all the money I have. All the savings I had are
already gone. Please do not allow those who need so much to be threatened in
this way. The old cliche of the WELFARE QUEEN is long since discredited, but now
certain politicians are trying to bring it back again.
Some people have any number of other types and degrees of
disability, and they should not have their benefits reduced because some
Republicans want to ease up the budget a bit and give more corporate charity to
their friends. That is all this attempted change is about, I'm sure. It's just
more of the same.
Uploaded File(s)(Optional)
No files uploaded
LOOK AT THE READER COMMENTS ON THIS UNFORTUNATE TWEET. I
FEEL MY BLOOD DOING A SLOW BOIL. I HAVE PLACED THEM BELOW THE ARTICLE.
Published on
Saturday, December 21, 2019
byCommon Dreams
After Admitting "It’s Always Been Republicans
Suppressing Votes," Trump Advisor Says Party Will Get Even More Aggressive
in 2020
"It's clear there's no law Donald Trump and his
right-wing machine won't bend, break, or ignore to try to win the
presidency."
byEoin Higgins, staff writer
Photograph -- Trump advisor Justin Clark, pictured here in
September, told an audience of influential Republicans in swing state Wisconsin
that the GOP will go on offense in 2020 to monitor polls. (Photo: Rich
Pedroncelli/AP)
Reporting on Friday shows a top advisor for President
Donald Trump's re-election campaign caught on tape in November bragging of
the Republican Party's history of voter suppression—and promising to go on the
offensive in 2020.
The revelation came from the Associated Press in a report
Friday on comments by Trump re-election advisor Justin Clark at an event
in Madison, Wisconsin.
"Traditionally it's always been Republicans
suppressing votes in places," said Clark. "Let's start protecting our
voters. We know where they are... Let's start playing offense a little bit.
That's what you’re going to see in 2020."
The Associated Press
Verified account
@AP
Follow Follow @AP
More
In an audio recording obtained by the AP, a Trump reelection
adviser tells Wisconsin Republicans that the GOP has
"traditionally" relied on voter suppression. He later said he was
referring to false allegations that the party has used such tactics.
7:04 PM - 20 Dec 2019
3,019 Retweets4,656 Likes
AP reported that Clark's remarks show the Republican Party
determined to use relaxed civil rights regulations to their advantage:
The roughly 20-minute audio offers an insider's glimpse of
Trump’s re-election strategy, showing the campaign focusing on voting locations
in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, which form the the so-called
"blue wall" of traditional Democratic strength that Trump broke
through to win in 2016. Both parties are pouring millions of dollars into the
states, anticipating they’ll be just as critical in the 2020 presidential
contest.
Republican officials publicly signaled plans to step up
their Election Day monitoring after a judge in 2018 lifted a consent decree in
place since 1982 that barred the Republican National Committee from voter
verification and other "ballot security" efforts. Critics have argued
the tactics amount to voter intimidation.
One Wisconsin Now deputy director Mike Browne expressed his
outrage over the remarks and the alleged strategy.
"The strategy to rig the rules in elections and give
themselves an unfair partisan advantage goes to Donald Trump, the highest
levels of his campaign and the top Republican leadership," said Browne.
"It's clear there's no law Donald Trump and his right-wing machine won't
bend, break, or ignore to try to win the presidency."
Dan Froomkin, editor of Press Watch, said that Clark's
comments showed that the GOP plans to go beyond suppressing the vote and
"will now supplement with aggressive voter intimidation at polls."
Clark told AP that he was speaking in jest about a
Republican history of voter suppression. But elections observers weren't buying
it.
"This should be one of those things that Democrats
never stop talking about," said Media Matters editor-at-large Parker
Molloy. "This is a scandal. "
HuffPost senior enterprise editor Nick Baumann wasn't
suprised at the content of the remarks but rather at the fact they were made in
the first place.
"This seems like a noteworthy admission of something
many people believe to be true but few people involved acknowledge," said
Baumann.
Progressive advocacy group For Our Future Wisconsin treated
the report as a call to action.
"Fight back by voting," the group tweeted.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.
THIS AP TWEET IS FOLLOWED BY SOME ASTUTE PROGRESSIVE COMMENTS,
OR PERHAPS MERELY FAIR-MINDED COMMENTS. EVEN CONSERVATIVES DON’T ALWAYS GO THIS
FAR IN THEIR WAY OF THINKING ABOUT WHAT IS AND ISN’T GOOD GOVERNANCE. THERE USED TO BE A MUCH MORE WIDELY ACCEPTED STANDARD OF HONOR THAN WE HAVE THESE DAYS.
The Associated Press
Verified account
@AP
Follow Follow @AP
More
In an audio recording obtained by the AP, a Trump
reelection adviser tells Wisconsin Republicans that the GOP has
"traditionally" relied on voter suppression. He later said he was
referring to false allegations that the party has used such tactics.
7:04 PM - 20 Dec 2019
3,019 Retweets4,656 Likes
Retweet 3.0K Like 4.7K
New conversation
David
@Neveratrueword
Dec 20
More
Replying to @AP
The GOP relies on gerrymandering, voter suppression and the
electoral college to get elected. They constantly garner millions of fewer
votes in presidential and congressional elections but still come out on top.
The USA is not a democracy, but a plutocracy. #VoterSuppression
6 replies37 retweets176 likes
Reply 6 Retweet 37 Like 176
Chef Kendra Nguyen
@chef_kendra
Dec 21
More
Now they also rely on outside interference from Russia.
0 replies8 retweets56 likes
Reply Retweet 8 Like
56
End of conversation
New conversation
botoxed camel
@mccbumgarner
Dec 20
More
Replying to @AP
The amazing thing is Republicans are trying to say this is
"sarcasm" because there isn't any better excuse they can come up with.
5 replies10 retweets357 likes
Reply 5 Retweet 10 Like 357
CattManDan
@cactusdanny
Dec 20
More
Just show them this video:
Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote"
(Goo Goo)
00:40 duration
1 reply19 retweets84 likes
Reply 1 Retweet 19 Like 84
SEE THE READER’S TWEET, ABOVE, BY CATTMANDAN, WHO PRESENTS
A VIDEO FROM A 1980 MEETING AT WHICH PAUL WEYRICH SPOKE. RONALD REAGAN AND
JERRY FALWELL ALSO SPOKE. WEYRICH EXPOUNDS THEIR REACTIONARY POSITION ON
ELECTIONS AND HOW THINGS SHOULD BE. HIS THEME IS, “I DON’T WANT EVERYBODY TO
VOTE.” THE VIDEO IS FROM PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY, A PROGRESSIVE
ORGANIZATION:
peoplefor
115 subscribers
Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement
and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other
groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow
Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government. Classic clip
from 1980. This guy still gives weekly strategy sessions to Republicans nowadays.
The entire dialog from the clip:
"Now many of our Christians have what I call
the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't
want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they
never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a
matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the
voting populace goes down."
This video was produced by People For the American Way:
http://www.pfaw.org
HERE IS THE AP ARTICLE ON THE SAME SUBJECT. THE DETAIL IT GIVES
IS CHILLING. WE NEED CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY LAWS THAT GO BEYOND CAMPAIGN FINANCING,
THOUGH EVEN THAT ISN’T ENFORCED, THAT I HAVE SEEN IN NEWS REPORTS. FOR TRUMP TO HAVE TRIED TO STRONG ARM THE
LEADER OF A DEPENDENT ALLY NATION AND GET HIM TO COOK UP A SCANDAL AGAINST ANY
POLITICAL OPPONENT NEEDS TO BE ILLEGAL AND A FELONY, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS
TECHNICALLY TREASON. IT'S ELECTION TAMPERING. IMPEACHMENT ON IT SHOULD BE CLEARCUT, AND ANY PERSON WHO GAINS OFFICE BY THAT MEANS SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY, AND ON THAT BASIS ALONE, BE REMOVED FROM HIS POSITION OF AUTHORITY.
UNFORTUNATELY, NANCY
PELOSI DIDN’T GET ALL THE WITNESSES SHE NEEDS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT DUE TO PRESIDENTIAL INTIMIDATION, AND SHE IS NOW PLAYING A GAME WITH HANDING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OVER TO THE SENATE AS A BARGAINING CHIP TO GUARANTEE WITNESSES IN THE SENATE TRIAL. IT WOULD BE FUNNY IF IT WEREN'T SO SERIOUS.
Trump adviser: Expect more aggressive poll watching in 2020
By SCOTT BAUER
December 20, 2019
PHOTOGRAPH -- FILE - In this Sept. 19, 2019 file photo, Attorney
Justin Clark speaks in Sacramento, Calif. Clark, one of President Donald
Trump's top re-election advisers is promising an aggressive effort on
Election Day in battleground states. Clark told an audience of
influential Republicans in swing state Wisconsin that the GOP will go on
offense in 2020 to monitor polls in key swing states like Wisconsin. The
Associated Press obtained audio of Clark's comments from the November gathering.
(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli File)
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — One of President Donald Trump’s top
reelection advisers told influential Republicans in swing state Wisconsin that
the party has “traditionally” relied on voter suppression to compete in
battleground states, according to an audio recording of a private event
obtained by The Associated Press. The adviser said later that his remarks
referred to frequent and false accusations that Republicans employ such
tactics.
Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel
to Trump’s reelection campaign, made the remarks on Nov. 21 as part of a
wide-ranging discussion about strategies in the 2020 campaign, including more
aggressive use of Election Day monitoring of polling places.
“Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing
votes in places,” Clark said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters.
We know where they are. ... Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s
what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a
much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”
Asked about the remarks by AP, Clark said he was referring
to false accusations that the GOP engages in voter suppression.
“As should be clear from the context of my remarks, my
point was that Republicans historically have been falsely accused of voter
suppression and that it is time we stood up to defend our own voters,” Clark
said. “Neither I nor anyone I know or work with would condone anyone’s vote
being threatened or diluted and our efforts will be focused on preventing just
that.”
Clark made the comments Nov. 21 in a meeting of the
Republican National Lawyers Association’s Wisconsin chapter. Attendees included
the state Senate’s top Republican, Scott Fitzgerald, along with the executive
director of the Wisconsin Republican Party.
Audio of the event at a country club in Madison obtained by
the liberal group American Bridge was provided to AP by One Wisconsin Now, a
Madison-based liberal advocacy group.
The roughly 20-minute audio offers an insider’s glimpse of
Trump’s reelection strategy, showing the campaign focusing on voting locations
in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, which form the the so-called “blue
wall” of traditional Democratic strength that Trump broke through to win in
2016. Both parties are pouring millions of dollars into the states,
anticipating they’ll be just as critical in the 2020 presidential contest.
Republican officials publicly signaled plans to step up
their Election Day monitoring after a judge in 2018 lifted a consent decree in
place since 1982 that barred the Republican National Committee from voter
verification and other “ballot security” efforts. Critics have argued the
tactics amount to voter intimidation.
The consent decree was put in place after the Democratic
National Committee sued its Republican counterpart, alleging the RNC helped
intimidate black voters in New Jersey’s election for governor. The federal
lawsuit claimed the RNC and the state GOP had off-duty police stand at polling
places in urban areas wearing armbands that read “National Ballot Security Task
Force,” with guns visible on some.
Without acknowledging any wrongdoing, the RNC agreed to the
consent decree, which restricted its ability to engage in activities related to
ballot security. Lifting of the consent decree allows the RNC to “play by the
same rules” as Democrats, said RNC communications director Michael Ahrens.
“Now the RNC can work more closely with state parties and
campaigns to do what we do best, ensure that more people vote through our
unmatched field program,” Ahrens said.
Although the consent decree forced the Trump campaign to
conduct its own poll monitoring in 2016, the new rules will allow the RNC to
use its multi-million dollar budget to handle those tasks and coordinate with
other Republican groups on Election Day, Clark said. State directors of
election day operations will be in place in Wisconsin and every battleground
state by early 2020, he said.
In 2016, Wisconsin had 62 paid Trump staff working to get
out the vote; in 2020, it will increase to around 100, Clark said.
Trump supports the effort, he said in the audio recording.
“We’ve all seen the tweets about voter fraud, blah, blah,
blah,” Clark said. “Every time we’re in with him, he asks what are we doing
about voter fraud? What are we doing about voter fraud?’ The point is he’s
committed to this, he believes in it and he will do whatever it takes to
make sure it’s successful.”
Clark said Trump’s campaign plans to focus on rural areas
around mid-size cities like Eau Claire and Green Bay, areas he says where
Democrats “cheat.” He did not explain what he meant by cheating and did not
provide any examples.
“Cheating doesn’t just happen when you lose a county,”
Clark said. “Cheating happens at the margin overall. What we’re going to be
able to do, if we can recruit the bodies to do it, is focus on these places.
That’s where our voters are.”
There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in
Wisconsin.
“If there’s bad behavior on the part of one side or the
other to prevent people from voting, this is bad for our democracy,” Wisconsin
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said in reaction to Clark’s comments. “And frankly,
I think will whoever does that, it will work to their disadvantage. It will
make them look, frankly, stupid.”
Wisconsin’s attorney general, Democrat Josh Kaul,
represented the Democratic National Committee in a 2016 New Jersey lawsuit that
argued the GOP was coordinating with Trump to intimidate voters. Kaul argued
then that Trump’s campaign “repeatedly encouraged his supporters to engage in
vigilante efforts” in the guise of ferreting out potential voter fraud. The
Republican Party disputed any coordination.
“It is vital that Wisconsinites have free and fair access
to the polls, and that we protect the security and integrity of our elections,”
Kaul said in a statement in reaction to Clark’s comments. “The Wisconsin
Department of Justice has been and will continue working with other agencies to
protect our democratic process.”
Mike Browne, deputy director of One Wisconsin Now, said
Clark’s comments suggest the Trump campaign plans to engage in “underhanded
tactics” to win the election.
“The strategy to rig the rules in elections and give
themselves an unfair partisan advantage goes to Donald Trump, the highest
levels of his campaign and the top Republican leadership,” Browne said. “It’s
clear there’s no law Donald Trump and his right-wing machine won’t bend, break
or ignore to try to win the presidency.”
___
Follow Scott Bauer on Twitter: https://twitter.com/sbauerAP
### AP
Published on
Monday, December 23, 2019
byCommon Dreams
It's Corporate Media, 'Moderate' Democrats, and the
Oligarchy vs. Bernie Sanders and a Movement
The greatest trick the American oligarchy ever played was
convincing the country they didn't exist.
byNorman Solomon
PHOTOGRAPH -- US Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
speaks during a rally in the Venice Beach neighborhood of Los Angeles,
California, December 21, 2019. (Photo: by Robyn Beck/AFP/via Getty Images)
For the United States, oligarchy is the elephant—and
donkey—in the room. Only one candidate for president is willing to name it.
Out of nearly 25,000 words spoken during the Democratic
debate last Thursday night, the word “oligarchy” was heard once. “We are
living in a nation increasingly becoming an oligarchy,” Bernie Sanders said,
“where you have a handful of billionaires who spend hundreds of millions of
dollars buying elections and politicians.”
Sanders gets so much flak from corporate media because his
campaign is upsetting the dominant apple cart. He relentlessly exposes a
basic contradiction: A society ruled by an oligarchy—defined as “a government in
which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish
purposes”—can’t really be a democracy.
The super-wealthy individuals and huge corporations that
own the biggest U.S. media outlets don’t want actual democracy. It would
curb their profits and their power.
Over the weekend, the Washington Post editorialized that
the agendas of Sanders and Elizabeth Warren “probably would fail at the polls
and, if not, would carry extreme risks if they tried to implement them.” The
editorial went on to praise “the relative moderates in the race”—Joe Biden,
Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar—for “offering a more positive future.”
But “a more positive future” for whom? Those “moderates”
are certainly offering a more positive future for the newspaper’s owner, Jeff
Bezos, who usually ranks as the richest person in the world. He wants to
acquire even more extreme personal wealth beyond his current $108 billion.
The Washington Post‘s routinely negative treatment of
Sanders, which became notorious during his 2016 presidential run, remains symptomatic
of what afflicts mass-media coverage of his current campaign—from editorial
pages and front pages to commercial TV news and “public” outlets like the
“PBS NewsHour” and NPR’s “All Things Considered” and “Morning Edition.”
The essence of a propaganda system is repetition. To be
effective, it doesn’t require complete uniformity—only dominant messaging,
worldviews and assumptions.
Prevailing in news media’s political content is the
central, tacit assumption that oligarchy isn’t a reality in the United States.
So, there’s scant interest in the fact that the richest three people in the USA
“now have as much wealth as the bottom half of the U.S. population combined.” As
for the damaging impacts on democracy, they get less attention than Melania
Trump’s wardrobe.
Now, as Sanders surges in Iowa and elsewhere, there’s a
renewed pattern of mass-media outlets notably ignoring or denigrating his
campaign’s progress. Like many other Sanders supporters, I find that disgusting
yet not surprising.
In fortresses of high finance and vast opulence—with
no ceiling on the often-pathological quests for ever-greater wealth—defenders
of oligarchy see democratic potential as an ominous weapon in the hands of
advancing hordes. Media outlets provide a wide (and shallow) moat.
For mass media owned by oligarchs and their corporate
entities, affinity with the “moderate” orientations of Biden, Buttigieg and
Klobuchar is clear. Any one of them would be welcomed by corporate elites as
protection against what they see as a hazardous upsurge of progressive
populism.
While Buttigieg has emerged as a sharp corporate tool for
the maintenance of oligarchy, Joe Biden is an old hand at such tasks. Meanwhile, ready to
preempt the politician-intermediaries for plutocracy, Michael Bloomberg is
offering a blunt instrument for direct wealthy rule. Estimated to be the
eighth-richest person in the United States, he was urged to run for president
this year by Bezos.
During the next few months, Bloomberg will continue to use his
massive class-war chest to fund an advertising onslaught of unprecedented
size. In just weeks, he has spent upwards of $80 million on TV ads,
dwarfing all such spending by his opponents combined. And, with little fanfare,
he has already hired upwards of 200 paid staffers, who’ll be deployed in 21
states.
If Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar or Bloomberg win the
Democratic presidential nomination, that would be a triumph for oligarchy in
the midst of rising grassroots opposition.
Right now, two corporate Democrats are the leading
contenders to maintain corrupted business-as-usual at the top of the party. As
the executive director of Our Revolution, Joseph Geevarghese, aptly put it days
ago, “Almost every problem facing our country—from runaway greed on Wall
Street, to high prescription drug prices, to locking kids in private detention
facilities, to our failure to act against the climate crisis—can be traced back
to the influence of the kind of donors fueling Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden’s
campaigns for president.”
While uttering standard platitudes along the lines of
making the rich and corporations “pay their fair share,” you won’t hear
Buttigieg or Biden use the word “oligarchy.” That’s because, to serve the
oligarchy, they must pretend it doesn’t exist.
PHOTOGRAPH -- Norman Solomon
Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org.
His books include "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning
Us to Death" and "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's
Warfare State." He is the founder and executive director of the Institute
for Public Accuracy.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.
MY SECOND
EX-HUSBAND SAID THIS ONCE IN REGARD TO IDEAS OF RIGHT AND WRONG, “THERE ARE
ONLY THE WINNERS AND THE LOSERS.” IT’S PRETTY EASY TO BECOME CYNICAL AND
HARDENED, BUT IF ENOUGH OF US REFUSE TO ASSOCIATE WITH SUCH AN ATTITUDE, THERE IS HOPE FOR US YET.
Published on
Monday,
December 23, 2019
byCommon Dreams
'Pretty Brazen
Stuff': Email Shows Top Buttigieg Fundraiser Offering Campaign Influence in
Exchange for Donations
"Pete's
fat-cat mega-donors are telling each other that if you donate big money to his
campaign, it gives you access and influence. And of course it does. That's why
they give it. And why it's a problem."
byJake Johnson,
staff writer
PHOTOGRAPH --
Democratic presidential candidate South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
speaks to guests during a campaign stop at Cronk's restaurant on November 26,
2019 in Denison, Iowa. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
An email
exchange reviewed by Axios showed a top fundraiser for Pete Buttigieg offering
a rich prospective donor access to the South Bend, Indiana mayor's
presidential campaign in return for donations, an overture critics described as
a particularly blatant example of how big money corrupts the American political
system.
H.K. Park—who, according
to Buttigieg's website, has raised at least $25,000 for the campaign—told a
potential donor in a recent email that "[i]f you want to get on the
campaign's radar now before he is flooded with donations after winning Iowa and
New Hampshire, you can use the link below for donations."
As Axios
reported late Sunday, Park's offer "was unusually blunt—even by modern
pay-to-play standards."
"Pretty
brazen stuff," tweeted The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan.
For campaign
finance watchdogs and reform advocates, the email is indicative of the way in
which wealthy donors buy access to and influence over presidential
candidates—in this case, before a single vote has been cast.
Brendan
Fischer, federal reform program director at the the Campaign Legal Center, told Axios
that Park's email "is an example of a campaign offering potential donors
an opportunity to buy influence."
"It's rare
that the public has an opportunity to see it in writing," said Fischer,
"but this is not the only campaign that's offering big donors the
opportunity to get on the radar of the candidate in exchange for large
contributions."
Even the
prospective donor, who Axios did not name, expressed alarm about Park's offer.
"It's very
telling and concerning that one of the campaign's major bundlers would talk
like that," the individual told Axios. "What would this suggest
about the way he's going to interact with Silicon Valley if the implication is
pay-for-play? If that's the way he's operating, it's in the public interest
for people to know what's being said."
Ryan Grim
✔
@ryangrim
Big scoop from
@axios: Pete bundler HK Park, from the defense consulting firm Cohen Group
where Buttigieg worked, used the promise of increased influence to lure big
donors, according to email
https://www.axios.com/pete-buttigieg-financing-fundraising-email-2b0014b7-a8a8-4421-a18b-b2931f50a1d5.html
…
2,907
7:05 PM - Dec
22, 2019
Twitter Ads
info and privacy
1,379 people
are talking about this
Shaun King, a
supporter of 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), tweeted
that the email shows Buttigieg's campaign finance problems go "far beyond
wine caves," referring to the mayor's ritzy fundraiser last week
in Napa Valley, California.
"Pete's
fat-cat mega-donors are telling each other that if you donate big money to his
campaign, it gives you access and influence," King said. "And of
course it does. That's why they give it. And why it's a problem."
In response to
Axios' reporting, Buttigieg spokesperson Sean Savett said the campaign
"did not see or authorize the language in this email."
"But it is
ridiculous to interpret it as anything more than asking potential supporters
who may be interested in Pete to join our campaign before caucusing and voting
begins," added Savett. "We are proud to have more than 700,000
donors who have already donated to our campaign, and the only promise any
donor will ever get from Pete is that he will use their donations to defeat
Donald Trump."
Slate journalist
Ashley Feinberg ridiculed Savett's depiction of the exchange as nothing more
than an innocuous offer to "join" the campaign.
Ashley Feinberg
Verified
account
@ashleyfeinberg
Follow Follow
@ashleyfeinberg
this isn't even
a good lie? it's literally right there! we can read it!
https://www.axios.com/pete-buttigieg-financing-fundraising-email-2b0014b7-a8a8-4421-a18b-b2931f50a1d5.html
…
4:15 PM - 22
Dec 2019
The email was
revealed just days after Buttigieg's rivals for the 2020 Democratic
presidential nomination criticized the mayor's big-money fundraising during the
primary debate in Los Angeles.
"Billionaires
in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States,"
said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). "If you can't stand up and take the
steps that are relatively easy... then how can the American people believe
you're going to stand up to the wealthy and well-connected when you're
president and it's really hard?"
Sanders pointed
to the number of billionaires that have donated to Buttigieg's campaign and
said, "This is why three people own more wealth than the bottom
half."
"We need
to get money out of politics," said Sanders. "We should run our
campaigns on that basis."
Our work is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel
free to republish and share widely.
This is the
world we live in. This is the world we cover.
THIS VIDEO OF
COSTNER, ONE OF MY ACTING HEROES IN MY YOUNGER DAYS, IS SOMEWHAT DISAPPOINTING
TO ME BECAUSE THE SOUND QUALITY IS VERY POOR, FUZZY SOUNDING AND WITH AN ECHO.
I COULDN’T UNDERSTAND MORE THAN A FEW WORDS THAT COSTNER SAID. WHAT IS
INTERESTING TO ME IS THAT BUTTIGIEG IS USING A FANFARE FOR HIS WALK-ON THEME,
THOUGH IT ISN’T FAMILIAR TO ME AND SOUNDS LIKE IT MAY HAVE BEEN COMPOSED FOR
HIM. IT’S SIMPLE AND CONSTRUCTED AROUND ONE BASIC CHORD. BERNIE SANDERS USES
THE VIETNAM ERA SONG “POWER TO THE PEOPLE.” HE ISN’T DOING MUCH TO INGRATIATE HIMSELF
WITH THE MODERATES IN THE PARTY, BUT IS, INSTEAD, EXCITING THE PROGRESSIVES. MAYBE
A CONCEPT SIMILAR TO “KNOW THYSELF,” CAN BE USED HERE: “KNOW THINE AUDIENCE.”
I PERSONALLY
DON’T THINK BUTTIGIEG HAS OR WILL HAVE THE CLOUT THAT BERNIE DOES, BUT HE IS
GETTING LOTS OF MONEY FROM WEALTHY DONORS. WE WILL CERTAINLY SEE THE RESULTS
SOON. THE EARLY VOTING STATES WILL OPEN THE POLLS IN FEBRUARY – ONE MONTH FROM
NOW – AND I FOR ONE AM GETTING EXCITED ALREADY. I DO WISH I COULD SEE BERNIE IN
PERSON, BUT I PROBABLY WON’T EVER BE ABLE TO.
KEVIN COSTNER
ENDORSES MAYOR
PETE IN IOWA ...
But Hollywood 💖 Bernie
12/22/2019
12:41 PM PT
PHOTOGRAPH –
KEVIN COSTNER AND PETE BUTTIGIEG SHAKE HANDS
Pete Buttigieg
was able to get at least one new Hollywood A-lister to endorse his bid for the
presidency -- but his opponent, Bernie Sanders, has him beat in that department.
Kevin Costner
showed up to a modest-sized town hall Sunday in Indianola, Iowa and publicly
backed the Southbend mayor for Prez ... reportedly telling the crowd of about
1,200 that he didn't wanna tell them who to vote for, but was simply sharing
who he supported.
Of course,
that's PB*. Kevin went on to tout Pete's steady hand among the
Democratic contenders, calling him a man of "this moment" and
someone who could right the ship.
Tara
Prindiville
✔
@taraprindiville
WATCH: Actor
Kevin Costner endorses @PeteButtigieg, in part saying “He won’t compete to be
the loudest. I don’t see his arms flapping. His silences are those of someone
who can wait until he has something worked out in his mind to speak.”
Embedded video
1,860
3:07 PM - Dec
22, 2019 · Indianola High School
Twitter Ads
info and privacy
564 people are
talking about this
Kevin then
introduced Pete and embraced him in a hug. Pretty cool moment ... but it kinda
pales in comparison to the VIP treatment Bernie was met with in L.A. the day
before.
The Senator
from Vermont held a massive rally Saturday in Venice, where thousands of
supporters showed up -- including a ton of celebs who are just as famous as
Costner. Folks like Tim Robbins, Danny DeVito, Willow Smith, Jeff Ross,
Anderson .Paak and more.
Play video
content
CELEBS FOR
BERNIE
TMZ.com
Hell, even AOC
came out to the West Coast and spoke on behalf of her guy. It was a pretty
raucous and packed event compared to Pete's relatively small and quiet
get-together.
The question
now is ... how does Pete's Hollywood clout hold up in the City of Angels. He's
been here a handful of times over the past few months or so for fundraising
events and whatnot, and once even got intro'd by 'This Is Us' star Mandy Moore.
A lot's changed
since then though, and he's picked up quite a bit of steam. Maybe another visit
is needed to test the waters?
PB*
“THAT’S PB.”
What does PB
mean?
This could be
the only web page dedicated to explaining the meaning of PB (PB
acronym/abbreviation/slang word).
Ever wondered
what PB means? Or any of the other 9127 slang words, abbreviations and acronyms
listed here at Internet Slang? Your resource for web acronyms, web
abbreviations and netspeak.
What is PB?
The Meaning of
PB
PB means
"Personal Best"
So now you know
- PB means "Personal Best" - don't thank us. YW!
What does PB
mean? PB is an acronym, abbreviation or slang word that is explained above
where the PB definition is given.
THIS IS ANOTHER
OF BERNIE’S SMALLER VENUES FOR A SHORTER SPEECH FOLLOWED BY A Q AND A. AS
ALWAYS, I REALLY LIKE TO HEAR REAL PEOPLE VOICE THEIR CONCERNS AND INTERESTS, AND THE MORE IN DEPTH CONVERSATIONAL PATTERN SHOWS HIM AT HIS BEST. HE'S CEREBRAL, NOT JUST A "SHOUTER," AS SOME OF HIS CRITICS SAY OF HIM. HE'S INTELLIGENT, BUT NOT CONCEITED OR LACKING IN EMPATHY.
FOR
YOUR INFORMATION, STONEWALL FARM IN KEENE, NH, IS A NON-PROFIT FARM, AND VERY
BEAUTIFUL. SEE THEIR FACEBOOK PAGE: https://www.facebook.com/StonewallFarmNH/.
Sanders'
supporters in holiday spirit at Stonewall Farm
By JAKE LAHUT
Sentinel Staff Dec 23, 2019 Updated 21
min ago
PHOTOGRAPH –
SANDERS SPEAKING
Bernie Sanders
the man may not have changed much, but a holiday dinner party at the Stonewall
Farm in Keene Sunday night showed how much his campaign and the movement behind
him have grown in four years.
In December
2015, the Sanders campaign had just filed a lawsuit against the Democratic
National Committee, he was still considered by many in Washington to be a mere
backbencher as an independent in the U.S. Senate, and his 2016 presidential
run was written off by some political observers as an “issue campaign” to
highlight income inequality — but not for long.
Now, those
dismissals and euphemisms are buried under a movement millions strong, which
the Green Mountain Stater, 78, credits to his overwhelming victory in the
Democratic Party’s 2016 New Hampshire primary over former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton.
“Four years ago
when I came here, and I told people what I thought needed to be done in
America, I was attacked by the political establishment, by the economic
establishment, by the media establishment,” Sanders told the crowd at capacity
in the reception room of the farmhouse.
“It was, oh
Bernie, you know, nobody believes in your ideas,” he continued. “You’re too far
out. You’re crazy. And then we won in New Hampshire overwhelmingly.”
As the crowd
drowned out his raspy voice over the microphone, Sanders looked to the wooded
ceiling and flung his arms up in vindication.
After suffering
a heart attack and undergoing a stents procedure in October, Sanders has only
risen in the polls, climbing back into the lead in New Hampshire.
Several
supporters said ahead of Sanders’ appearance they had backed him in 2016 and
never really considered shopping around for another candidate going into 2020.
Statistically,
the Sanders campaign would hope for that anecdotal trend to be as sticky as
possible.
When he beat
Clinton by more than 20 percentage points in the 2016 New Hampshire primary — the
biggest margin in a contested race in the century-long history of the primary
— Sanders’ best performance came in Cheshire County, where he won two out of
every three votes cast, bringing in 70 percent of the vote.
Although many
candidates have dropped out and Sanders is in the lead with 19 percent of
the vote in the RealClear Politics New Hampshire polling average, competitors
Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren are not far behind, effectively
splitting the bulk of the vote four ways.
With more than
half of the state’s Democratic primary voters registered in Hillsborough and
Rockingham counties to the east, running up the score in the lesser populated Connecticut
River Valley counties — sometimes dubbed “Bernie’s backyard” — could make
the difference between winning the primary and falling out of the top three.
But those who
bore the cold to wait in line to snag a spot in the main hall of the farmhouse
and a plate of hot food told The Sentinel they’re still “feeling the Bern”
from 2016, and believe Sanders has the best chance at beating President Donald
Trump.
“I think that
he makes it clear that the issues that are important to [young voters] —
canceling student loan debt, climate change — are important to him, and he’s
actually gonna do stuff to turn these issues around,” Caroline Power, a
sophomore at Tulane University home in Keene for winter break, said.
Asked about the
heart attack, Power’s mother, Kate, said her support remained unwavering.
“With his age
and with how dedicated and how hard he’s been working, it wasn’t a surprise, I
felt like,” Mrs. Power, a 55-year-old home health professional, said. “Because
he pushes himself. And I think he’s proven that he’s come back from it very
strong.”
Sanders leads
his Democratic presidential competitors in support among voters between the
ages of 18 [sic] in just about every national and early state poll, and he drew
a fair amount of students on break from school to the Stonewall Farm Sunday —
even those who won’t be old enough to vote on primary day, Feb. 11.
“He doesn’t
partake in the whole dirty politics with money or anything,” Payton Cavanaugh,
a junior at Monadnock Regional High School from Troy, said. “He’s very
straightforward.”
Cavanaugh,
along with her friend Kira Condap, a Swanzey senior at Monadnock who won’t be
18 by Feb. 11, cited Sanders’ outspokenness on climate change and student
loans as key factors in their support, similar to Power.
Part of what
has bolstered Sanders and made his campaign more robust in 2020 compared to
2016 is his bevy of young progressive campaign surrogates.
Shortly after
his heart procedure, he was endorsed by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
D-N.Y., who has quickly become one of the most well-known American politicians
worldwide at the age of 30.
Introducing
Sanders in Keene Sunday was U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., a 43-year-old
who is also a co-chair of the campaign.
Khanna vouched
for Sanders’ foreign policy chops in an interview with The Sentinel.
“We worked
together on the Yemen War Powers Resolution [in Congress],” the Silicon Valley
congressman said. “... It stopped our refueling of Saudi planes that were bombing
Yemen and leading to millions of people facing famine.”
“I know when he
is president, we’re gonna stop the unconstitutional wars,” he continued. “...
In this country, I think, people are tired of these wars.”
Sanders did not
take questions from the press.
For those
deeper in Sanders world, the transformation of his campaign and movement have
also brought about personal ones.
Heather
Stockwell of Keene introduced Khanna Thursday night, and spoke about how being
an early supporter of Sanders changed her life.
She said she
went from squeezing in her political volunteering between several jobs to now working
as a paid organizer for Rights & Democracy N.H., where she has gone down to
the nation’s capital for major protests and assembled a network of activists
locally to push for change at the Statehouse and on the 2020 campaign
trail.
Through all of
the different politicians she’s seen in the field, Stockwell said Sanders is
the only one who holds up for her.
“Some of us
have bird-dogged candidates,” she said, referring to the practice of repeatedly
asking pointed questions to get a yes or no answer out of a candidate. “And
many of us have come back to this same conclusion:
“That Bernie is
the only candidate who can get the job done.”
Jake Lahut can
be reached at 352-1234, extension 1435, or jlahut@keenesentinel.com.
THIS ISN’T THE
FIRST TIME THAT SANDERS HAS COME OUT ON TOP AGAINST TRUMP, BUT IT’S GOOD TO SEE
IT PUBLICIZED BY A MAINSTREAM OUTLET.
BERNIE SANDERS
OUTPERFORMS JOE BIDEN IN HEAD TO HEAD MATCHUP WITH DONALD TRUMP, NEW POLL FINDS
BY BLAKE DODGE
ON 12/23/19 AT 12:20 PM EST
POLL
In a recent
survey by Ipsos/Reuters, slightly more respondents said they
would vote for Senator Bernie Sanders than former Vice President Joe Biden in
the 2020 election against President Donald Trump.
Though the
difference is within the margin of error (3.4 percentage points) 39 percent of
the 1,108 adults surveyed between December 18 and 19 preferred Sanders over
Trump, compared to 37 percent who preferred Biden.
Biden has
maintained a steady lead in national polls over other top candidates for
several weeks, but primary voters have far from made up their minds. Recent
surveys note growing indecision among Democratic voters and even declining
favorability overall for candidates as the field has yet to coalesce around
one or even two likely party nominees.
Though Sanders
and Warren may be appealing to the same base of young, progressive voters, Sanders
began to eclipse the Massachusetts senator after the fourth Democratic debate,
when multiple candidates attacked Warren on how she would fund her health care
plan.
Sanders' health
care plan is no less ambitious, but recent surveys have determined the
Vermont senator claims a plurality of support among Latino voters and young
people between 18 and 29 years old, demographics likely fueling his
late-stage surge to the top of the Democratic field.
Young People
Rally for Sanders in California
Photograph -- Supporters
gather to hear US Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speak at a
rally in the Venice Beach neighborhood of Los Angeles, California, December 21,
2019.
ROBYN
BECK/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
In the
Ipsos/Reuters poll, Sanders is supported by more independents (21 percent) and
Democrats (74 percent) than both Biden and Warren in matchups against Trump,
but the president nonetheless claims more of the independent vote against
Sanders, Biden and Warren.
In another
measure of electability, however, the Sanders-Trump comparison compels more
people to vote at the end of the day, according to the survey. Only 20
percent of respondents say they wouldn't vote if the election were held between
Sanders and Trump. That's compared to 23 percent and 21 percent who said the
same of Biden and Warren versus Trump, respectively.
The survey,
like many in recent weeks, also noted a leveling off of support for
impeachment against the president. Only 46 percent of respondents said Trump
should be impeached. Slightly more (3 percent) "strongly agreed" that
the president abused his powers than those who said he obstructed Congress.
The Democratic
race officially kicks off in February during the Iowa caucuses, a state
where Biden and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg continue to lead in
the polls. Since 1976, 71 percent of Democratic candidates who won in
Iowa ultimately clinched the nomination, according to The Week.
EVEN IF YOU
THINK YOU’VE SEEN ENOUGH BERNIE SPEECHES, WATCH THIS ONE, AND THE SPEAKERS WHO
PRECEDED HIM ON THE STAGE AS WELL.
Rep. Bernie
Sanders rally in Venice
7,970 views • Streamed
live on Dec 21, 2019
THUMBS UP 303
THUMBS DOWN 45
X RESIDENTE IS
A RAP ARTIST FROM PUERTO RICO. THIS IS A CONVERSATION IN HIS KITCHEN BETWEEN HIM
AND BERNIE SANDERS.
Bernie x Residente
58,362 views • Sep
27, 2019
THUMBS UP 5.3K
THUMBS DOWN 87
Bernie Sanders
262K
subscribers
Bernie Sanders
joins Residente at his apartment to talk about the political and economic
crisis in Puerto Rico, climate change, education, U.S. foreign policy and how
we build a movement to defeat Donald Trump.
Category
News &
Politics
I FOUND THIS IN
MY EMAILS TODAY, AND THOUGHT I’D PASS IT ON. IN MY VIEW, NATIONAL POPULAR
VOTE IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES IN AMERICA TODAY. THE NPV OFFERS A
WAY TO WORK ON THE PROBLEM OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE OVERRULING THE POPULAR VOTE
THAT WOULD WORK WITHOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, OR SO THE FOUNDERS HOPE. OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE A
LIGHTNING ROD FOR RIGHTIST ATTACKS, BUT THOSE WHO DON’T TRY NEVER WIN, AND THIS LOOKS LIKE A GOOD CHANCE TO REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR NATIONAL LIFE TO ME.
SOMETIMES I
DON’T TRUST PEOPLE OR GROUPS WHO SEND ME EMAILS OR CALL ON THE PHONE, USUALLY
ASKING FOR MONEY, BUT I DO TRUST COMMON CAUSE. PERHAPS YOU WILL WANT TO GET ON
BOARD ALSO. I ONLY GAVE A SMALL AMOUNT, $15.00, BUT I DO IT GLADLY, BECAUSE I
BELIEVE THEY WILL PUT IT TO GOOD USE RATHER THAN FRITTERING IT AWAY ON “OVERHEAD”
COSTS LIKE PAYING THE CEO BIG BUCKS.
From:
"Electoral
College Update" causenet@commoncause.org
12/23/2019 at
8:42 AM
Anything could
happen in next year’s presidential election, Lucy. And, there’s not a whole lot
we can predict this far out...
BUT there are a
few things I can guarantee:
- Candidates
will spend almost all of their time campaigning in just a handful of swing
states...
- They’ll
ignore people everywhere else -- and won’t have much reason to try to win their
votes...
- And, we’ll
once again risk the candidate who loses the popular vote nevertheless winning
the presidency.
Why? The broken
Electoral College.
That’s why
we’re working to build consensus right now in multiple key states to support
National Popular Vote.
You may already
be familiar with this new way to elect our nation’s president. But just
in case you’re not...
The National Popular Vote Compact* is an agreement among states to guarantee the
presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50
states and the District of Columbia.
When could this
take place? Just as soon as states totaling 270 electors -- a majority
-- join in. You see, the Constitution lets states decide how to award their
Electoral College votes -- so once we’ve hit that threshold, every state in
the Compact will agree to award theirs to whoever wins the popular vote
nationwide, giving that candidate the 270 votes required to win the
presidency.
AND... we are
now closer than you might think! Because 15 states and the District of
Columbia have already signed on. That gives us 196 electors!
What about the
remaining states? Therein lies the struggle. We must expend all our energy and
resources to bring more of them on board. And it must happen -- because we must
reform the anti-democratic way we currently elect the president.
That’s why
Common Cause has prioritized winning the National Popular Vote Compact in as
many states as possible this year -- and we’ve already helped bring Colorado,
New Mexico, Delaware, and Oregon on board. We have real momentum, which is why
in the coming months Common Cause must ramp up our efforts even more.
I hope we can
count on your support. And, there is no time to lose -- because we are opposed
by powerful forces who have deep pockets.
Lucy, we CAN
fix the broken Electoral College -- but it’ll take day-in, day-out
grassroots organizing to make it a reality. So if you agree it’s time for
National Popular Vote, I’m asking you to help us reach the 270 electoral votes
we need by making your contribution today >>
CHIP IN $10
CHIP IN $20
CHIP IN $35
CHIP IN $50
CHIP IN $100
Or give another
amount >>
As more and
more Americans focus on next year’s presidential election, we have a MAJOR
opportunity to expand National Popular Vote to more states -- inching closer
and closer to the 270-vote mark we need for victory.
The antiquated
“winner-take-all” Electoral College system must be changed so that voters in
all 50 states have a say in choosing our president.
We can’t allow
the presidential candidate who fails to receive the most votes to occupy the
Oval Office -- which has happened in two out of the last five presidential
elections!
It’s time to
STOP the Electoral College from silencing the majority of voters -- and ensure
that every American has a meaningful voice in our presidential elections, no
matter where they live.
Thanks for all
you do,
Jack Mumby,
Deputy Digital Director
and the team at
Common Cause
Common Cause
805 Fifteenth
Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC
20005
202.833.1200
commoncause.org
Make a Donation
Sent via ActionNetwork.org.
To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving
emails from Common Cause, please click here.
National
Popular Vote Compact*
WIKIPEDIA AGAIN
PRESENTS A REALLY THOROUGH AND UNDERSTANDABLE DESCRIPTION OF A COMPLICATED
SUBJECT, SHORT OF GOING TO LAW SCHOOL, THAT IS. GO TO:
THINGS ARE GETTING
EXCITING NOW, WITH COMPETING NEWS RELEASES, ETC. HERE WE HAVE ENDORSEMENTS; BERNIE IS DOING BETTER SO FAR.
2020 Democratic
Candidates Line Up Showbiz Figures For The Campaign Trail
By Ted Johnson
December 20,
2019 5:07pm
PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen.
Bernie Sanders and Susan Sarandon
Mary Altaffer/AP/Shutterstock
On Sunday,
Yellowstone star and Oscar winner Kevin Costner will appear at a town hall
event in Indianola, Iowa, to endorse Pete Buttigieg for president.
Earlier this
week, Donald Glover was announced as the “creative consultant” for Andrew
Yang’s presidential campaign, and he appeared with the candidate at a pop-up
store of Yang merchandise.
PHOTOGRAPHS -- Costner
and Buttigieg Shutterstock
We are entering
celebrity endorsement season, as entertainment figures pick their candidates
and the campaigns tout their Hollywood connections.
Among the other
figures who have announced their support for a candidate include Rob Reiner for
Joe Biden and John Legend for Elizabeth Warren. Ariana Grande expressed her
support for Bernie Sanders, and Cardi B appeared in a conversation with the
candidate that appeared on YouTube, Susan Sarandon campaigned in Iowa with
Sanders, just as she did in the 2016 cycle. Rosario Dawson, who has been dating
Cory Booker, also is endorsing him — if that wasn’t obvious already.
The $64,000
question is: Do these endorsements help? [PHOTOS OF HILLARY AND BILL
CLINTON] Gerry Broome/AP/Shutterstock
In the
aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat, there was much consternation that
her campaign overdid it with celebrity appearances, as she appeared at a
star-studded closing rally in Philadelphia with Bruce Springsteen and, in her
final event, with Lady Gaga and Jon Bon Jovi in North Carolina (left).
But this is a
different moment in the campaign — the primary, not the general election. With
15 Democrats still in the race, there still is a competition to break through,
and the added draw of a celebrity on the campaign trail is an added twist to
the regular talking points or stump speech. When Oprah Winfrey campaigned for
Barack Obama in Iowa in 2007, the campaign used it as an organizing
opportunity, collecting the personal information of the thousands who turned
out to see the two speak. Recent polls of registered voters show that celebrity
endorsements don’t really sway votes, but the public certainly pays attention.
On Friday, Jane
Lynch started trending on Twitter after she posted a comment defending Pete
Buttigieg from one of Elizabeth Warren’s attack lines at Thursday’s Democratic
debate. Warren had criticized Buttigieg for having dinner with high-dollar
donors in a “wine cave” in Napa Valley.
Lynch wrote,
“Hello everyone. Billionaires in wine caves have as much right to say who gets to
be president as waitresses in diners and plumbers in my bathroom. Class warfare
is ugly, @ewarren. Thanks for listening everyone.”
Jane Lynch
✔
@janemarielynch
Hello everyone.
Billionaires in wine caves have as much right to say who gets to be president
as waitresses in diners and plumbers in my bathroom. Class warfare is ugly,
@ewarren Thanks for listening everyone.
56.8K
3:30 PM - Dec
20, 2019
Twitter Ads
info and privacy
27.7K people
are talking about this
The risk for
the 2020 candidates is that Republicans will use their celebrity embrace to
reinforce the idea that Democrats are out of touch in their coddling of the
showbiz coastal elite. But that is an argument the GOP makes cycle after cycle,
and already is doing so anyway.
What’s more,
President Donald Trump is not like his predecessors in that he clearly pays
attention to who is supporting whom and is not shy about highlighting those celebrities
who have publicly declared their support for him. That includes Kanye West, who
made a memorable Oval Office visit in 2018, and Jon Voight, who was recently
honored at a White House ceremony with the National Medal of Arts.
RACHEL MADDOW
Russia working
social media to manipulate American voters (again)
SHARE THIS - COPIED
Rachel Maddow
looks at the strategy behind Russian-backed social media operations that build
vast follower audiences with clickbait content and then slowly introduce
pro-Russian, anti-American, or other political content to their feeds.
Dec. 20, 2019
03:38 /04:05
THUMBNAIL
SKETCH:
*BEN COLLINS
NBC NEWS REPORTER CREATING A “SIMULATED
ENVIRONMENT” THAT IS DIFFICULT TO DISPROVE
EPOCH TIMES
*FACEBOOK PULLED
DOWN A LARGE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS FROM FOREIGN BASED ENTITIES AGAIN
*REP SEAN
PATRICK MALONEY – “NO CONFIDENCE IN FACEBOOK MORAL COMPASS”
*EPOCH TIMES
AND OTHERS
*FAKE VIDEOS
THAT MAY BE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM REALITY ….
*FACEBOOK:
GROUP USED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO “CREATE FAKE PEOPLE” AND PUSH
PRO-TRUMP MESSAGES.
The Epoch Times
From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia
The Epoch Times
is a multi-language newspaper[2] founded in 2000 by John Tang and a group of
Chinese Americans associated with the Falun Gong spiritual movement.[3]
Though the newspaper is known for general interest topics with a focus on news
about China and its human rights issues, it has become known for its support
of U.S. President Donald Trump and favorable coverage of far-right politicians
in Europe; a 2019 report showed it to be the second-largest funder of pro-Trump
Facebook advertising after the Trump campaign.[4][5][6][7][8] [9][10] [11]
The newspaper is part of the Epoch Media Group, which also operates New Tang
Dynasty Television (NTD).[7] The group's news sites and YouTube channels
are viewed by NBC News as spreading conspiracy theories such as QAnon and
anti-vaccination propaganda.[7][12][13] . . . . The Epoch Times websites are
blocked in mainland china.[20]
THE RACHEL
MADDOW SHOW REALLY GETS TO THE POINT ON THIS AS ON SO MANY SUBJECTS. IS SHE
UNBIASED? NO, BUT I BELIEVE SHE IS ON THE SIDE OF WHAT IS GOOD, AND SHE'S A VERY SHARP COOKIE.
Schumer:
Opponents of impeachment witnesses don't want the truth
SHARE THIS -
COPIED
Senator Chuck
Schumer, top Democrat in the Senate, talks with Rachel Maddow about the
pressure he is putting on Mitch McConnell and Senate Republican colleagues to
allow Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate to include witnesses and
other evidence.
Dec. 19, 2019
**** ****
**** ****
Comments
Post a Comment