Subscribe: kos
http://www.dailykos.com/user/kos/rss.xml
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language:
Tags:
democratic  democrats  donald trump  house  it’s  party  people  popular vote  president  republicans  trump  vote  white 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: kos

kos



News Community Action



Published: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 02:25:28 +0000

Last Build Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 02:25:28 +0000

Copyright: Copyright 2005 - Steal what you want
 



Franken, Conyers, and all sexual harassers in Congress should resign

Thu, 30 Nov 2017 19:28:13 +0000

Earlier this week, I wrote about site policy regarding the avalanche of revelations of rampant sexual harrassment in the political world. As I said at the time:

Now there are legitimate debates around the issue. For example, should Franken resign? He’s apologized, his victim has accepted the apology, and has said she doesn’t want him to quit the Senate. Is that enough? Some might argue yes, others no, that we should have a zero tolerance policy for such behavior. That’s a legitimate debate.

I didn’t delve into that debate then, because I wanted to focus on site policy. But here’s what I, personally, think: All elected officials with credible accusations of sexual harassment should resign. Period. That means popular vote loser Donald Trump and Roy Moore. But that also means Rep. John Conyers, Sen. Al Franken, and every other politician who has been unable to comport to basic standards of human behavior, no matter how much we might otherwise like them. Expose them all, and cut that rot out of our government. 




If you're shaming women, you're doing it wrong

Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:01:14 +0000

There are huge benefits to being part of this amazing community—so many people working together toward building a better, more equitable, more just America. We feed off each other’s energy and, as a result, regularly accomplish the impossible. I am blessed each and every day for being with you all. 

I could wax poetic on the virtues of this community for thousands of words, but today I’m going to focus on some of its downsides—currently manifesting itself in the rash of execrable diaries attacking or slut-shaming women who have discussed their treatment at the hands of Sen. Al Franken and Rep. John Conyers. 

And yes, execrable is exactly the right word. 




Free college: Great policy, terrible politics

Wed, 13 Sep 2017 18:32:44 +0000

Free college makes sense almost any way you slice it. At the individual level, a college degree provides dramatically higher earning potential potential—56 percent higher than that of a high school grad, a record high. At the national level, an educated workforce guarantees global competitiveness in a cutthroat economic environment. Thus, it makes little sense to saddle grads with unsustainable debt. 

However, the logical solution—free college—is terrible politics

Many of the proposals Democrats are pushing fall flat in focus groups and polling.

The call for free college tuition fosters both resentment at ivory tower elitism and regret from people who have degrees but are now buried under debt. Many voters see “free” as a lie — either they’ll end up paying for tuition some other way, or worse, they’ll be paying the tuition of someone else who’ll be getting a degree for free.

We know how conservatives are systematically undermining public sentiment against education, with 58 percent of Republicans now saying that colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country. So already, you have a built-in constituency hostile to the idea. In their mind, more people in college just means more liberals. 




Boy did I f' up on Twitter

Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:24:29 +0000

After that asshole Trump pardoned fellow Nazi Joe Arpaio, I was despondent. Nothing Trump has done affected me so deeply, so viscerally, so I did what everyone should never do, and I lashed out on Twitter.

x

The problem was immediately obvious to everyone except me: The way I wrote it, I was blaming people of color for Trump. And of course, that was bullshit. So I want to make very clear: 

I fucked up. I was clumsy. I was a fool.

Trump was elected because of the racist white assholes who voted for him. 

Trump continues to exists because of the racist white Republican Party that enables him. 

There is a debate to be had about how to increase voter participation in marginalized communities. There’s a reason why Republicans work so hard to disenfranchise those potential voters, putting in institutional roadblocks to the franchise. We at Daily Kos (and I, personally) have long focused on those issues. 

There’s also a debate to be had about how Democrats only seem to care about people of color around election time, and then never again. Latinos are still chaffing about the number of deportations during the Obama years. Missouri had a Democratic governor and DA during the Ferguson saga. 

But none of that has direct bearing on one key point—the blame for our white supremacist government is on the white people who voted for Trump 2-1 in 2016, and on the institutions that have willfully been created to prevent marginalized communities from voting. 

Period. 




Republicans are totalitarians, and they're being more honest about it every day

Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:01:01 +0000

We’ve long known that Republicans have little respect for traditional democratic norms and ideals. We’ve seen it in their hostility toward voting rights, their decimation of traditional norms in the House and Senate, their refusal to give D.C. residents a voice in Congress, their obstruction of the Obama agenda despite being in the deep minority, and their worship of big daddy strongmen (like Putin, even before Putin installed a puppet regime in our White House). 

But conservatives used to at least pay lip service to the idea of democracy. Yet the last few weeks have been rough on that facade, as more of the truth comes out every day. Witness:

  • Mike Huckabee calling for the elimination of an elected Senate, and specifically, the 17th Amendment, which literally has the words “elected by the people” in it. Note, this tweet didn’t emerge from a vacuum. ALEC has been agitating for this for years, and they’re only doubling down on the campaign these days. Ironically, the Senate has a strong natural GOP gerrymander—for example, the Dakotas get four senators to California’s two. But that’s still not enough for a GOP hostile to anything that might get in the way of dictatorial power.
     
  • According to a YouGov poll, 45 percent of Republicans want the government to “shut down "biased or inaccurate" media outlets” (of course, they’re not talking about Fox News or Breitbart). And 35 percent are undecided about the bedrock U.S. guarantee of freedom of the press. Only 20 percent side with the First Amendment, apparently since everyone else has conveniently lost their pocket Constitution.



2018 is a presidential year: Trump versus Pelosi. For real.

Thu, 08 Jun 2017 17:06:59 +0000

1. Democrats win the House (odds are good)

2. Democrats win the Senate (really tough, but small possibility)

3. House impeaches the popular-vote-losing Donald Trump and Mike Pence

4. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, third-in-line, becomes president 

We could actually make that happen. Obviously, hers would be a caretaker presidency, just holding down the fort until the American people got their say in 2020. But a caretaker would be far preferable to whatever the fuck Trump is, and a Democratic president would be in line with the wishes of the majority of the electorate. Not to mention, provide competence, and take the threat of nuclear annihilation off the map. Oh, and the Russians would lose their puppet. 

So yes, we can make that happen, and we should work our asses to make it happen. Because President Nancy Pelosi sounds pretty good right about now.




Republicans are weaponizing the Census to further disenfranchise non-white, non-straight Americans

Tue, 06 Jun 2017 16:20:05 +0000

Chapter 33 of my upcoming book, The Resistance Handbook: 45 Ways to Fight Trump (pre-order at that link!), is titled “Help the Census Count Everyone.” At first blush, that might seem to be a weird thing to include in a book about anti-Trump activism, but this is serious shit. As I write: 

What if federal dollars could be deployed in a way that screwed the same marginalized communities that voted against Trump and the GOP? What if Republicans could perpetuate the system of inequity, poverty, and marginalization that depresses voter participation? Heck, what if conservatives could pretend that the nation’s demographic trends weren’t as dire for their future prospects? There would be less political pressure to reform their party to be more inclusive and tolerant, and they could continue on their path to white nationalism without worrying about the electoral consequences [...]

The census in this country doesn’t just determine how much funding cities and states receive from the federal government, it also determines the boundaries of congressional and state legislative districts. Undercounting marginalized communities directly disenfranchises them and perpetuates the cycle of disempowerment.

That Census determines everything—how political boundaries are drawn, who has power and who doesn’t, who gets federal dollars and who doesn’t, and even who exists. In fact, one of the Trump regime’s first actions was to eliminate a question on the census about sexual orientation. Republicans don’t even want to acknowledge that LGBTQ people exist, and they certainly don’t want an accurate count of that population. It’s easier to pretend they are tiny and marginalized and not worthy of any concern. And businesses use that Census data to make their own decisions. An inaccurate Census is bad for business and bad for the economy. 




Newt Gingrich has pro-Trump book coming out. My anti-Trump book is better. Pre-order it today!

Fri, 02 Jun 2017 15:34:44 +0000

On June 13, Newt Gingrich will release his new shit book about Donald Trump:

UNDERSTANDING TRUMP explains the president's actions so far and lays out a vision for what Americans can do to help make President Trump's agenda a success.

(image)
My new book, out June 20, but you can pre-order today!

A week later on June 20, a better book will come out. Co-authored with Michael Huttner, founder of ProgressNow (which played a big part in Colorado’s big shift to Blue), The Resistance Handbook: 45 Ways to Fight Trump will come out. 

Guys, I’m super proud of this book. At a time when so many of us are desperate for new ways to resist the popular-vote loser’s regime, we provide hundreds of suggestions, grouped into 45 broad categories. We talk about ways to fight against Trump’s corrosive effect on our culture (bullying, sexism, racism, xenophobia), ways to fight his assault on the policies we care about (racial justice, women’s issues, worker’s rights, immigration, true religious liberties, and so on), and ways to build the electoral infrastructure we so desperately need, and should’ve already had built. We highlight good work being done by our best allies, and encourage people to lead the charge. 

Already, several thousand books have been pre-ordered, and adding to that tally will improve its chances of getting on bestseller lists. This isn’t important for financial reasons. The book is priced so low ($12.99 for paperback, and even cheaper on Amazon) that royalties will be negligible. It’s important because 1) we want this resource in the hands of as many activists around the country as possible, and 2) because I don’t want Gingrich’s stupid book on bestseller lists without there being a Resistance-themed book to counterbalance it. And the more people who see this book exists (and the bestseller lists do that), the more people will buy it and share it, and the more people will do great activism, and the closer we’ll be to our idealized liberal utopia. 

One more thing: The mother of all bestseller lists is the NY Times, and it’s not a real bestseller list. Someone could sell 1 million books, only on the Amazon, and it wouldn’t make the list. That’s why the Bible isn’t on the list. Or the dozens of high-selling religious books that flood the market. It’s “curated,” and largely based on sales at independent bookstores. 

So if you want to order it on Amazon, that’s great! But it would be extra helpful if you called your local bookstore and placed an order with them. 

Sound like a plan? So you can either:

I’ll share more info on the book in the two weeks leading up to release. It’s good. Pre-order! And fuck Newt Gingrich. 




FIFTEEN years old. One-Five. 15!

Fri, 26 May 2017 16:01:17 +0000

Exactly 15 years ago, at 12:57 pm PT, Daily Kos went live with the lamest first post ever. Well, maybe it wasn’t lame, in context. But had I known Daily Kos would become what it is today, I might’ve given it a bit more thought, perhaps wordsmithed a little more. As it was, I was testing out this newfangled “blog” thing, and that’s apparently what burst out of my keyboard (on one of those original Bondi Blue iMacs). 

Now here we are, 15 years later, 15 years older, 15 years wiser, 15 years more battle-tested, 15 years more cynical, but 15 years more hopeful of where we came from and how far we’ve come. 

As an organization, we’ve certainly come a long way. While that first post was written on a Sunday (I went and checked), on a day of a lunar eclipse no less, most of my early blogging was done surreptitiously at work. In fact, that’s where the name came from—I needed something quick and dirty that didn’t out me to my boss, so I went with my Army nickname until I could “think of something better.” I never did. The name stuck. 

Today, we just onboarded our 55th employee, with another five in the wings in the next couple of months. We hit nearly 20 million unique visitors on peak months. Tens of thousands participate in the community. Our email list is almost 3.5 million strong. And we’re raising millions for individual candidates. The scale is so massive, so awesome, that I can’t wrap my mind around it. It’s too abstract. And yet … here we are.  




If you defend Trump, you will get burned. And Republicans (like his latest spokeswoman) love it!

Fri, 12 May 2017 17:31:43 +0000

It’s a story as old as … Donald Trump’s first forays into the Republican primary, and it goes like this: the popular-vote loser lies. His staff and surrogates rise up to defend him. A couple of hours later, Trump changes his story, leaving his defenders high and dry, looking like the fools that they are. 

And of course, we just saw that with the firing of FBI director James Comey. The official explanation was that he was fired for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Most people laughed, but his lieutenants and sycophants dutifully rose to defend him. Then, in the middle of their defenses, Trump came out and admitted it was all bullshit, firing Comey to obstruct the investigation into his election collusion with Russia. So how does his spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders explain blatantly lying to the country?

x

So according to her, everything coming out of her mouth is made-up bullshit if she hasn’t met with the president. So does the press has to ask, “Is your answer made-up bullshit, or have you actually spoken directly with the president?” 

Obviously, this excuse is laughable. This isn’t someone overly concerned with lying on Trump’s behalf, no matter how supposedly Christian her upbringing might’ve been. (Her father is part of the American Taliban.) But it shows, once again, that if you get in bed with Trump, you will get burned. 




No, no, no. No Merrick Garland for FBI director, you idiots!

Fri, 12 May 2017 16:30:59 +0000

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is running for president in 2020. She thinks that Obama-style “let’s all get along and find common ground” thinking will get her the nod. So yes, she’s obviously misreading the base electorate’s mood and she won’t win, so who gives a shit, right? Well, except that it leads to her saying stupid shit like this:

x

The reasons this is insane should be obvious: 1) Republicans would get to replace Garland on a critical appellate circuit court, and 2) popular-vote loser Donald Trump could turn around and fire Garland a week later and nominate the Russian ambassador instead. And the Senate GOP would vote to confirm, because they are all co-conspirators in Trump’s treason. 

Not to mention, after what they did to Garland’s Supreme Court nomination, even saying his name is a gross insult to Democrats.

And yet there is Klobuchar, thinking that this is somehow a “great idea.” 

Now she was all alone on that limb yesterday, but unfortunately today she has company.




Senate Democrats are ON FIRE! Help support their calls for a special prosecutor

Wed, 10 May 2017 21:14:33 +0000

Popular vote loser Donald Trump is an idiot. If we had to have a Republican president, who better than this raging moron? 

I mean, the day after he blatantly obstructs justice by firing FBI Director James Comey, he decides to hang out with the Russian ambassador in the White House. And then, Trump lets them take pictures of him looking all excited and happy to be hanging out with his masters! 

So not only are Senate Democrats threatening to gum up the works, but they’re using Trump’s own images against him. And while poster props in the congressional chambers often fall flat, the one above scores a direct hit. 

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to stick with Trump because they are also morons, apparently unaware that they’ll eventually get the Trump shiv, just like Comey did yesterday. Trump doesn’t give a shit about anyone or anything, his party included. 

So by obstructing a real investigation into Russian influence, Republicans are now co-conspirators in the (successful) Russian attempt to subvert our democracy. Congrats, morons! But, it’s never too late to do the right thing. Hopefully, with increased Democratic pressure, we’ll get that special prosecutor our nation so obviously deserves. 

Sign the petition: Appoint a special prosecutor NOW!




SHUT THE SENATE DOWN until we have a special prosecutor

Wed, 10 May 2017 18:26:54 +0000

This is a great start:

x

Now take it further, and further and further. 

x

How much further? Shut the Senate’s “business as usual” until Republicans agree to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this whole sordid Russia mess. And by denying every motion for unanimous consent, Democrats can essentially slow the Senate to an unworkable crawl. 

For some bizarre reason, Republicans have decided to hitch themselves to Donald Trump. As a result, they are now co-conspirators in Russia’s takeover of the US government. Seems stupid, as Trump will stab them in the back without a second thought. But they can begin to mitigate the damage by pushing to get this special prosecutor appointed. 

Until then, shut the Senate down. 

Sign the petition: Appoint a special prosecutor on Russia's ties to the Trump campaign




If we agree on the issues, why are so many on the left fighting each other?

Mon, 08 May 2017 16:55:16 +0000

As I noted last week, we are an ideologically cohesive party. We have near unanimous agreement in support of income equality, justice for all, a sane immigration policy, and respect for women. Yet we are riven by internal divisions. How can that be? And the answer is simple:

Priorities. 

The hardcore Bernie Sanders dead-enders—the ones who insist on waging jihad against the party and its mainstream liberal adherents—are undying in their belief that income equality can solve all ills. Dubbed “alt-left” on Twitter (quickly replacing “Bernie Bro” as the preferred moniker), this crowd has resorted to using words like “identity politics” and “political correctness” to strike at their mainstream liberal detractors. Yup, they are adopting left-wing critiques right out of the conservative movement’s playbook. 

Several days ago, the Weekly Standard had a thought experiment that is directly on point with our internal battle:

Would you trade aggressive immigration restrictions and enforcement for single-payer healthcare?

The fact that liberals would answer that question differently is exactly why we have our own internal war to fight. And yes, there is a right answer—and a wrong one.




If GOP voted for TrumpCare to rally their base, mission not accomplished

Mon, 08 May 2017 13:42:05 +0000

The House’s TrumpCare vote last week has lit a new fire within the liberal base, and it is motivated as hell heading into the 2018 cycle. Our ActBlue page targeting endangered House supporters of TrumpCare is fast approaching $1.5 million. Swing Left also crossed the million dollar mark on Saturday, so they’re likely well above that. Candidates are pouring out of the woodwork, giving Democrats a wealth of options on a dramatically expanded map. As EMILY’s List noted, they talked to 900 potential women candidates during the 2016 cycle. The’ve already crossed the 11,000 mark this year. A massive wave is building, and the House vote this past week supercharged it. So how can Republicans justify voting on a deeply unpopular bill they haven’t read, and without a CBO score? 

Because they needed to energize their base, they say. 

“We have to keep our own base excited because off-year elections are about the base,” said Representative Steve Stivers of Ohio, who oversees the House campaign arm. “We need to show them accomplishments.

That makes sense. The GOP 2010 wave was built on a toxic brew of an energized Tea Party Right, with a liberal base depressed by the lack of single payer or a public option. Republicans would be well-served to avoid that formula. Problem is, there was one way to avoid it, and that was to deliver on their promise—full repeal. What they delivered instead was met with a big, fat, meh.




Wall Street deregulation vote should remind us, we actually have everything in common

Thu, 04 May 2017 17:49:20 +0000

x

Today, mostly lost in the noise over GOP efforts to take away people’s health care and declare sexual assault a “pre-existing condition,” a House panel voted to deregulate banks. All the Republicans voted for it. All the Democrats voted against it. 

This is what’s so infuriating about our own current civil war. Everyone agrees with one another! Communities of color and women believe in fighting income inequality. I doubt there’s a single white liberal economic populist who doesn’t believe in ending police violence, fixing our immigration system, and fighting rape culture and other inequities women face. 

And even the Democrats, which get a ton of well-deserved abuse, are standing overwhelmingly united in resistance to the popular-vote loser’s agenda, and that of this Republican allies. And as much as some people refuse to acknowledge, we didn’t just have the most liberal party platform in history, but also the most liberal presidential nominee platform in history.

So the big question is: if we don’t disagree on ideology, what exactly are we fighting about? I’ll pick this thread back up next week, because there really is an answer to this question.




The progressive wing of the party won. Now we're fighting over privilege

Wed, 26 Apr 2017 18:22:22 +0000

One of the frustrating aspects of the current intra-party flareup is the fact that ideologically, we’re pretty much all on the same page. And our side won that ideological battle. 

  • Minimum wage. See headline today: “Democrats unveil plan for a $15 minimum wage.”
  • Social Security. Remember when cutting it was all the rage, fueled by Third Way and other deficit scolds on the supposed left? Well, the party platform now proclaims expansion as the official party position: “Democrats will expand Social Security.” And Democrats (led by Elizabeth Warren) have followed along. Even Hillary Clinton, by the way
  • Income inequality. A conservative Wall Street Journal columnist whined: “[T]he platform draft’s core narrative is inequality, the injustice that inequality entails, and the need to rectify it through redistribution.” And aside from a few red state outliers, the core has been adopted party wide. 

The issues that suddenly divide us? Apparently whether we, as a party, will be unyielding in a woman’s right to choose. Taking a page out of the right’s playbook, Jane Sanders called fighting for that right “political correctness.” I see it as core and just as central to who we are as a party as the bullet points above. We’re apparently arguing over whether economic equality would keep immigrant families from being torn apart by immigration authorities (it wouldn’t), or keep African Americans from being shot in the streets and killed in jail cells (it wouldn’t), or keep Donald Trump from grabbing a woman’s pussy (it hasn’t). 

Those aren’t divisions based on an economic debate. The economic debate, internally, is settled. That debate is over those who think it’s the only issue that matters, and women and people of color who know damn well it isn’t. 




Ask me anything! For reals, anything.

Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:26:29 +0000

So I’ve been (publicly) away from the site, working on site growth, on a new book on how to resist Trump, and attending planning and strategy events for both the professional left, and also the new resistance. 

But I miss you guy! So ask away! I’ll be in and out during the day, so I’ll try to get to as many questions as possible in between book writing, attending a play in which my daughter is playing Donald Trump (no joke, she sings about how selfish she is), and other random daily things like “eating”. 

And for fun, here is me, when I was in the Army:

(image)




Holy crap, did you see Kansas? Onward to Georgia! And Montana!

Wed, 12 Apr 2017 02:37:14 +0000

What does it mean when an almost-30-point Trump district ends up remaining Republican by single-digit numbers? It means that few—if any—Republicans are safe, anywhere. How scary is it for the GOP? Take a gander: Trump won—

  • 36 House seats by 5 points or less
  • 66 seats by 10 points or less
  • 98 seats by 15 points or less
  • 123 seats by 20 points or less
  • 151 seats by 25 points or less, and
  • 159 seats by 27 points or less, which was his margin of victory in KS-04

The bold is where this special election ended up, losing by about six points, or a shift of about 20 points from Trump’s numbers in 2016. Now if we assumed a shift of equal proportion across the entire United States, that means that 123 Republican seats could actually be in play. Can we all say HOLY FUCKING SHIT? Because I am. We need 24 seats to retake the House. 

But why wait until 2018 to take out some Republicans when we have two big special elections coming up within the next month and change? The first is in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, where the Daily Kos community has already poured nearly $1.5 million into Jon Ossoff’s campaign, catapulting him to the national scene. Then we have Montana’s special election, where local folk hero Rob Quist is making Republicans sweat so hard, they’re trying to change the laws to make it harder for people to vote. 

So if you’re in Montana or Georgia (or close by), you’re in luck! You get to volunteer directly on those campaigns! Otherwise, let’s give a big momentum boost to our two Democratic heroes by dropping a few bucks into each of their campaigns. Seriously, go do it now. Just a few bucks! Because when hundreds of thousands of people donate, that shit adds up really quick!

In conclusion, donate!

x

123 to be exact. Donate

Can’t donate? Sign up to make Get Out The Vote calls for Jon Ossoff.




Hey, remember me? Here's why you haven't seen me in a while

Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:49:05 +0000

Hey all, it’s been a while! Since I’ve sort of disappeared from the pages of this site, I thought it was time to give you an update on what’s kept me from writing more. In short, I’ve been crazy busy both being a “CEO” and a movement person.  Since the election, I’ve been to at least four post-mortems—gatherings of the professional left—trying to figure out what went wrong, and how to move forward. Some of these events have been more useful than others, but all suffer from the same defect: a need to come up with the message, with the strategy that will make everything all right. Too many people at these events are more obsessed with trying to win back rural whites stuck in fake-news land than they are about working to goose turnout among our core demographics—young voters, people of color, and single women.  I’ll give you an example—at a messaging “breakout session,” the participants decided that reclaiming the flag was important. And yes, it is! But the messaging from the mostly white participants was that Trump doesn’t represent “our America.” And sure, he might not represent white people’s America. But he sure has underscored the real America, one in which immigrant families are torn apart by ICE agents, and in which black youth bleed in the streets. It’s been interesting seeing white folks suddenly experience mild discomfort when communities of color and women have had to deal with much worse for … forever.  That’s not to say these events are not useful. They’re great networking events, and yes, when I speak up at sessions talking about “our America” and the need to be aspirational instead of looking back to a perfect America that never was, hopefully that resonates with some people. But there is always a sense that we’re fighting the same battle over and over again, and no, no breakout session will ever come up with THE MESSAGE because we’re liberals, and we all have our message.  And it doesn’t even matter! Conservatives have their message, right? Less taxes, family values, and a strong national security. Simple! And then they nominated a reprobate who might literally have the worst family values in the entire nation and is a tool of Russian intelligence and/or the mob. Our message will be our 2020 nominee’s message, for better or for worse.  But I digress… So I’ve been going to those meetings. I’ve also been going to infrastructure-building meetings, and these are much cooler. Most of these include many of the new resistance groups, so they’re tapping into the new energy in our grassroots, and I’ve dedicated myself not just to attending such meetings and speaking whenever asked (something I never did pre-Trump), but also being a mentor to many of these groups’ founders. I’ve been where they are, so if I can help in the slightest way, I’m happy to do so. In fact, I LOVE doing so, but of course, that’s time I no longer have to write.  Then there’s Daily Kos … So big Democratic donors are suddenly interested in funding shit. Where were they years ago, as we lost state legislatures and governorships and the House and the Senate? Who the fuck knows, but at least now they’re opening up their wallets. So after the election, we decided we were going to go out and raise a big round, millions of dollars, to fund a massive expansion of Daily Kos. Our traffic has doubled since the election, and has reached 20 million monthly unique visitors at its peak. Our email list has blown past 3 million strong. Our [...]



In Yakla, Yemen, someone ordered SEALs to press attack after they lost element of surprise. Who?

Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:37:00 +0000

Campaign Action

Popular vote loser Donald Trump was happy to take credit for the Yakla, Yemen, raid that cost a Navy SEAL his life, as well as that of more than two dozen civilians (including way too many children). Now, as details continue to emerge, he’s trying to deflect and blame others. He’s Trump, it’s what he does. He cannot fail—he can only be failed. 

In an operation full of failures from planning to execution, there is one question that should be asked above all others. Check this out:

Through a communications intercept, the commandos knew that the mission had been somehow compromised, but pressed on toward their target roughly five miles from where they had been flown into the area. “They kind of knew they were screwed from the beginning,” one former SEAL Team 6 official said.

You got that? The element of surprise was gone. They knew that. They knew they were screwed from the start. And yet … they pressed on. 

Someone made that decision. Someone decided that this SEAL team needed to continue forward, into the maws of a well-prepared enemy. 

And remember: the point of the mission was to capture an al-Qaida leader and gather intelligence. If the team was compromised, it was obvious at that point that their target would be gone and any real intelligence was gone with him, or destroyed. Which is what happened

So who decided to send these SEAL teams into a no-win situation when the entire point of the mission had been compromised? It wasn’t Trump. He was too busy doing whatever in his bedroom to care. So who sent Ryan Owens to his death? 




Trump nominees want quick confirmation because they're too contemptible for public scrutiny

Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:20:38 +0000

If you didn’t catch this piece earlier today, go check it out. It’s a remarkable admission by Republicans that their unqualified, rich fuck nominees can’t stand public scrutiny. The key line:

Very few people at that level don’t have skeletons in their closet so you [need to] get confirmations done lickety-split.”

So much admitted in a single, simple sentence. 

Campaign Action

First of all, the only thing that could protect these nominees from having their “skeletons” exposed is lightning-fast confirmations. Anything less than that, and these nominees can be properly exposed as the frauds that they are. 

And yes, they are frauds. Take this sentence: “Very few people at that level don’t have skeletons in their closet.” Now what exactly does that mean? It means that these assholes have used their positions of power and wealth to hurt, use, or abuse people, and to break the rules they expect everyone else to follow. And of course they have! They are not just billionaires (which in itself is not disqualifying), but conservative billionaires who have no problem associating themselves with the popular vote loser. That’s the part that is disqualifying. 

Senate Democrats have slowed the confirmation process to a crawl, and it’s working. Keep exposing these assholes. And if they don’t like it, they can always quit and go back to their lives of wealth and privilege. 




Nobody likes you Donald. Well, except for non-college whites. How long will that firewall hold?

Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:05:55 +0000

The popular-vote loser is a supremely unlikeable person. Sure, he snuck into the White House thanks to an antiquated electoral system designed to protect the interests of slaveholders, but he didn’t get off to a rousing start. He got no honeymoon period. And somehow, he’s finding new depths of unpopularity to explore, with Pew clocking his favorabilities at 39-56. Of those, 46 percent disapprove “strongly,” which is higher than anything President Barack Obama saw, ever. 

Now, lest anyone think that Trump is an anomaly, and not really representative of the GOP (an argument we’ll hear more and more in the months and years ahead), there’s this, “84 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners approve of the way he is handling his job as president.” He’s unambiguously their president.

Now it’s clear that there’s a dramatic racial divide in our nation’s politics, but there’s a dramatic difference among whites based on whether they have a college degree or not:

Approve Disapprove
White 51 48
Black 12 80
Hispanic 25 72
White, College 38 61
White, non-college 57 41

And that white, non-college-educated cohort is Trump’s firewall. He’ll bleed support among all those other groups, but there’s relatively not much room to drop. So if he’s going to end up in the low 30s or even high 20s, very possible within six months, it’ll be because non-college whites start abandoning him. And if Trump loses those guys, there’s nothing else propping up the GOP. And 2018 will be a political bloodbath. 




What do you think, does Donald Trump actually believe his own b-llshit?

Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:24:16 +0000

Popular-vote loser Donald Trump lies. A lot. Just in the last few days, he’s claimed that the people outside his Mar-a-Lago resort were supporters, rather than resistance fighters. He’s already claimed today that he earned the “biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan,” conveniently forgetting George H. W. Bush in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. He was even bragging, at today’s news conference, about the “massive crowds” at a rally that hasn’t even happened yet!

Now we know the regime strategically traffics in lies. The formula is simple: one-third of the public will believe anything Trump or his people say. Therefore, you provide lies to fuel their fake news network. 

One-third of the public is like us—reality based. We see the bullshit a mile away and stare incredulously at the brazenness of their lies. 

The last third looks at all the arguing, shrug their shoulders, and say “both sides are arguing, so who can know the truth?” Maybe they even split the difference between reality and the regime’s lies. “Trump says 3 million voted illegally, reality says 0 million did. So the truth might be 1.5 million?”

So if one-third believe the lies, and one-third is confused into submission, that means that in the end, only one-third actually knows the truth. Mission accomplished. Republicans need an ignorant electorate to survive. 

So as a strategy, that works great for the regime. But as for Trump, is he a willing participant in this charade, or does he actually believe the bullshit? Does he actually look at those protesters and, in his mind, see supporters? Does he walk around truly believing his victory was the greatest since sliced bread? 

No one can truly know, but what do you think?




Why does Democrat Chuck Schumer insist on finding common ground with f'n Trump?

Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:49:46 +0000

We have a white supremacist in the White House with zero legitimacy, hated by a solid majority of the American public, and who has single-handedly launched a mass nationwide resistance movement that has reached even the reddest corners of the country. The courts then hand your side a stunning and complete victory, driving the popular vote loser to near madness. So how does the nation’s top elected Democrat respond?

x

Oh my f’n god. He’ll never learn! NO ONE voting in 2018 wants “bipartisanship.” “Bipartisanship” killed the Democrats during the last real president’s term. So why try to legitimize the asshole president by treating him like a real president? He’s not! He’s not even in fucking charge! 

NO ONE voting in 2018 will give Chuck and his crew props for being “the grownups in the room.” That didn’t work for Obama. No one will give Chuck and his crew props for “when they go low, we go high.” That didn’t work for Hillary Clinton.

There isn’t a single person saying “I’d consider voting for Democrats in 2018, but only if they find common ground with this president!” Seriously, NOT ONE. 

And why is he playing into Trump’s narrative that the country isn’t safe? Americans sure don’t believe that (by a 66-23 percent margin).  




There was no Republican strategy behind shutting up Elizabeth Warren beyond 'we hate her'

Thu, 09 Feb 2017 18:04:24 +0000

Campaign Action

Today’s stupidest idea:

Did McConnell Put Warren Right Where He Wants Her?

Senate GOP boss elevates left‘s hero, maybe because she‘s not strongest 2020 Democratic option

Elizabeth Warren has made zero indication that she’s interested in running for president. Quite the opposite, in fact.

And is this anything like Barack Obama manipulating Donald Trump into running for president by mocking him publicly, because maybe he wasn’t the strongest 2016 Republican option?

So let’s stop pretending that this is some grander strategy beyond “shutting that bitch up,” or like Republican asshole Lindsey Graham said, “The bottom line is, [shutting her up] was long overdue with her.” Republican senators hate her. She is a thorn on their side. The fact that she is a woman makes them even angrier. Remember: Sens. Tom Udall, Jeff Merkeley, and Bernie Sanders all read the same letter from Coretta Scott King on the floor of the Senate, and how many of those guys were silenced? Zero. The answer is zero.  

They simply hate Warren. It’s that simple. 




Trump and President Bannon can only be cruel if ordinary people let them

Wed, 08 Feb 2017 15:10:27 +0000

Have you heard of the infamous Milgram experiment?

"Teachers" were asked to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the "learner" when questions were answered incorrectly [...]

If at any point the innocent teacher hesitated to inflict the shocks, the experimenter would pressure him to proceed. Such demands would take the form of increasingly severe statements, such as "The experiment requires that you continue.” [...]

Milgram was shocked to find those who questioned authority were in the minority. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the teachers were willing to progress to the maximum voltage level.

The experiment was designed to understand how people could follow the Nazis. Americans have long prided themselves in thinking that they would be immune to such pressures, but as the Milgram experiment proved, that isn’t the case. And it wasn’t the case at airports across the country following Bannon’s Muslim ban.

The men and women who reportedly handcuffed small children and the elderly, separated a child from his mother and held others without food for 20 hours, are undoubtedly "ordinary" people.




Trump is SO easy to mess with—he telegraphs his weak points, and his staff is happy to leak

Tue, 07 Feb 2017 19:25:12 +0000

If you want to get to the popular vote loser in the White House, you certainly don’t do it by talking policy. He doesn’t care! But unlike past presidents who kept their weaknesses close to their vests, Donald Trump is nothing but lizard brain, and his staff is all too happy to blab about his craziness.

[T]he devastating “Saturday Night Live” caricature of Spicer that aired over the weekend — in which a belligerent Spicer was spoofed by a gum-chomping, super soaker-wielding Melissa McCarthy in drag — did not go over well internally at a White House in which looks matter.

More than being lampooned as a press secretary who makes up facts, it was Spicer’s portrayal by a woman that was most problematic in the president’s eyes, according to sources close to him.

This is a guy who doesn’t care that Nazi Steve Bannon is trying to start a new religious crusade, but instead obsesses over shit like this:

Bannon’s rising profile — captured on this week’s cover of Time magazine, which labeled him “The Great Manipulator” — caught the attention of senior officials, as well as Trump, who takes pride in his own cover appearances and inquired about Bannon’s Time debut with aides.

“Inquired” instead of “congratulated,” because no one overshadows Trump. No one. And while discussing that Time cover, when Joe Scarborough mentioned that people were thinking that President Bannon was the president, Trump immediately responded:




Congressional Republicans gaze longingly at Trump's bunker, want to build their own

Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:59:12 +0000

Popular vote loser Donald Trump isn’t hogging all the activist anger for himself. There’s plenty to go around, and congressional Republicans are getting their fair share! But for some reason, they’re not happy to be on the receiving end of the kind of rage they enjoyed during the tea party’s heyday. So, they want some bunkers of their own

House Republicans during a closed-door meeting Tuesday discussed how to protect themselves and their staff from protesters storming town halls and offices in opposition to repealing Obamacare, sources in the room told POLITICO.

House GOP Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers invited Rep. David Reichert, a former police sheriff, to present lawmakers with protective measures they should have in place. Among the suggestions: having a physical exit strategy at town halls, or a backdoor in congressional offices to slip out of, in case demonstrations turn violent; having local police monitor town halls; replacing any glass office door entrances with heavy doors and deadbolts; and setting up intercoms to ensure those entering congressional offices are there for appointments, not to cause chaos.

Deadbolts! Metal doors! Heck, they should go all out and dig themselves some escape tunnels, and maybe a pocket hiding spot under the floor boards. Of course, there’s that pesky problem of having to leave to go to work, get home, or just enjoy some actual sunshine and whatnot. But if they can get local police to “monitor” their movements, perhaps form a protective cordon around them when moving around, they may get to avoid the unpleasantness of coming face-to-face with their constituents, and dealing with the “chaos” of suffering a dissenting point of view. 




Trump is lonely and crazy in his bunker

Mon, 06 Feb 2017 20:23:00 +0000

Popular vote loser Donald Trump can’t leave his bunker without being reminded how much people hate him, and he doesn’t even have a family to lean on—because they hate him too.

Usually around 6:30 p.m., or sometimes later, Mr. Trump retires upstairs to the residence to recharge, vent and intermittently use Twitter. With his wife, Melania, and young son, Barron, staying in New York, he is almost always by himself, sometimes in the protective presence of his imposing longtime aide and former security chief, Keith Schiller. 

Does his body guard rock Trump to sleep? Holy shit, that’s pathetic. It would be sad and tragic if he wasn’t so f’n dangerous. 

Cloistered in the White House, he now has little access to his fans and supporters — an important source of feedback and validation — and feels increasingly pinched by the pressures of the job and the constant presence of protests, one of the reasons he was forced to scrap a planned trip to Milwaukee last week.

“Cloistered” is one way to put it. Another would be “hunkered down in his bunker.” His supporters aren’t feeling particularly motivated to show support for the lunatic in the White House. Meanwhile, the protests are working—he knows we’re out in the streets, he knows we’re not going away, he knows we’re legit (no matter what his propaganda arm says), and it’s killing him. He needs adoring crowds, and he’s getting the opposite. And while President Steve Bannon might not care about protests (he wants chaos), his useful idiot Trump does.




Democrats consider surrendering to Trump on Supreme Court. They must want to destroy their party

Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:30:25 +0000

On Monday, already failed presidential hopeful Amy Klobuchar said:

 ... she was not concerned that the party’s base would turn on its elected officials.

… which is why we get headlines like this:

Democrats consider backing off big battle over Trump's Supreme Court pick

So what possible fucking reason might make Democrats decide to sit out this critical fight? Well, in short, there’s a batch of them who are fucking idiots. I mean, they’re the dumbest fuckers you can possibly imagine. How goddam stupid are they? Their logic is as follows: if Democrats use the filibuster, Republicans might eliminate it. And if they eliminate it, they won’t be able to use the filibuster! 

The obvious response, of course, is why have a filibuster at all if you’re too fucking afraid to use it?

Or put another way, why be a senator if you’re too afraid to do your job?

The only choice is all out obstruction. Anything less will have those Democrats drawn and quartered by the base. Filibuster until there is no filibuster. It’s what Republicans planned on doing to President Clinton’s choice. If Republicans eliminate the filibuster, then good for them! It’s a piece of shit anyway. Respond instead by slowing Senate business to a crawl. It’s easy! Just refuse to allow unanimous consent on anything.

Anything less than all-out war on the would-be tyrant is unacceptable. 




Nazi Trump regime defends handcuffing Muslim toddlers, thinks they are 'a threat'

Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:13:22 +0000

It’s so patently absurd to handcuff ANY of these Muslim travelers entering the country on valid visas, residency documents (green cards), and even U.S. passports. But to do so to children is so grossly beyond the pale that no one could defend it—could they?

x

Like the Nazis they emulate, these assholes in the Trump regime aren’t treating children like this by accident, but by design. They are being cheered on by the Stormfront crowd, loving the idea of cuffed (and even dead!) brown children. 

At some point, those carrying out these unconscionable orders are going to have to decide what side of history they want to be part of. They can’t pretend that a 5-year-old presents any kind of threat. Saying “I was just following orders” will never be a valid defense.  




In the spirit of bipartisanship, here's the only thing Democrats SHOULDN'T obstruct

Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:10:30 +0000

Yeah, this would be okay:

In a meeting last week with The Post editorial board, Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chair of the House Oversight Committee, said he was weighing legislation to require presidents to undergo an independent medical examination, including for mental health. Chaffetz cautioned that he wasn’t “talking about some of the rhetoric that’s flying around” about Trump. Still, he said, “If you’re going to have your hands on the nuclear codes, you should probably know what kind of mental state you’re in.”

Remember, Dems, obstruct everything else. But this one is okay. 




Sen. Klobuchar shows Democrats how NOT to do things in this post-Trump era

Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:50:35 +0000

The following Democrats are, per rumor and insider gossip, running for president: Sen. Corey Booker, Gov. Mario Cuomo, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and Gov. Terry McAuliffe. Thus, it bears taking particular note of how they behave to our unfolding national nightmare. 

Wall Street-fave Booker voted with Republicans against drug reimportation to keep Big Pharma happy. Cuomo will be 2020’s Joe Lieberman. We’ll have fun beating the crap out of him. McAuliffe has been a surprisingly good governor, but do we really need another ethically challenged, kinda corrupt candidate? So for now (given this list), the most intriguing potential candidates are Gillibrand, Harris and Klobuchar. Except, well, let’s strike Klobuchar from the list.

“I believe we must fulfill our constitutional responsibility to have a hearing and a vote,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, a member of the Judiciary Committee, while urging Mr. Trump to choose a nominee “in the mainstream.”

Ms. Klobuchar, who stood on Sunday with members of her state’s large Somali population, said she was not concerned that the party’s base would turn on its elected officials.

“As a whole, the 48 Democratic senators share their anger and passion and will pull the emergency brake on such things as the executive order, but also some compromise if there are areas we can find common-sense agreements,” she said.

“We must give Republicans the courtesy of hearings and votes even though they denied us that ‘courtesy’ for an entire year because I’m sure Trump will be receptive to our ‘urging’!” 

“I’m not concerned about whether our base will turn out even though there we continue to underestimate the anger and frustration in our base!”

“To make my last point clear, we must find compromise and common ground with Nazi Trump and his cult Nazi party!” 

Fuck this shit. If her read of the protests is “the base will stick with us as we try to find ways to normalize the Nazi-in-Chief”, then we can safely move to other choices.




No hyperbole: Nothing less than all-out resistance to the Nazi-Republican regime is acceptable

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 18:28:08 +0000

The signs have been there, all along. We haven’t been blind to them, but afraid to go Godwin, we haven’t called it for what it is. But we can’t ignore it anymore. 

1. “White nationalist” in the White House. Whether you want to call Steve Bannon a Nazi or KKK, it’s an irrelevant distinction. This is a guy who believes that “some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved." 

2. The Muslim ban. aka “separation between peoples.”

3. Bannon wants chaos, so he cherishes the social upheaval he’s causing. It’s his plan“Lenin, [...] wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” 

4. Jewish people are now a target. The GOP is now literally the party of “soft Holocaust denial.” On Holocaust Remembrance Day, the White House statement refused to mention Jews because, pretty much, “all lives matter.” (Blue shirt lives matter?) Reince Priebus today continued to defend that craziness: “Everyone suffered in the Holocaust, including the Jewish people.” 




Hey Senate Democrats, get it now? VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING. Do NOT enable this monster

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:40:26 +0000

Popular vote loser Donald Trump is every bit the monster we thought he was, no matter how many people tried to shrug him off as a showman. 

I don’t know how many ways I can say “do not normalize this monster by approving anything he requests.”

But I’ll say it this way: Trump is a madman with delusions of tyranny. Every vote for him, no matter how innocuous, is one step closer to his dystopian fascist America. 

Every vote for anything he and his cult party propose is support for Trump, and Democrats—you will be held accountable. Fucking be leaders. Ride the wave. Join the resistance, or get the fuck out of the way for someone who will fight. 

x



No, we don't need a 'positive message.' NO worked for Republicans, it'll work even better for us

Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:08:46 +0000

There’s this long-running debate about what the Democratic Party “message” should be. It then manifests with stuff like this:

“We need to remember that one of the reasons young voters, especially, were uninspired is you can’t have a message of, “I’m not him,’” cautioned DNC vice chairman R.T. Rybak, the former Minneapolis mayor.

I don’t remember that at all. Hillary Clinton won millennials handily, and if any were uninspired, it was because of claims that she was “neoliberal blah blah no difference.” Here’s the reality:

  • “No” as a message is powerful, and gave Republicans control of government. The fact that Republicans are scrambling now that they’re the dogs catching the bus is irrelevant. They won with “no.” 
     
  • Our biggest non-Obama-year victory in recent memory was 2006. What was our message? “We’re not Bush.” Shit works. 
     
  • We’re liberals. Good luck trying to settle on a message we can all agree with. Having attended countless brainstorming sessions with top liberal groups and activists, I’ll tell you right now—it ain’t gonna happen. Luckily, it doesn’t have to. See bullet point above!
     
  • Party message is irrelevant. Republicans are well branded, right? Strong national security, strong family values, and lower taxes! Except that they nominated and elected a guy who violated two of those three tenets—a Russian puppet who may be the single-most morally loathsome individual in the country. In other words, the message we’re taking into 2020 will be the message of whoever ends up being our nominee. 
     
  • “We’re not him” works better after someone is president than before, and that will go triple for Trump.

So keep our message simple: we are the resistance, and we oppose Trump and his Republican cultists. Period. The End. 




If you want to appease Trump, then 'Democrat' Rahm Emanuel is your guy

Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:28:22 +0000

Unbelievable.

[David] Brock’s Florida conference outlined some of the philosophical fault lines. In one closed-door session, Chicago mayor and former Barack Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel advocated a measured approach to Trump opposition, one in which Democrats choose only specific fights with a tight game plan.

If you can’t muster relentless and sustained opposition to a historically unpopular white supremacist president who lost the popular vote, then get the fuck out of my party. Trump may be the problem, but so are you. And Emanuel, who guided the White House to our party’s disastrous 2010 midterm elections, is a problem. If anyone should know the power of relentless opposition to a president, it should be him. He’s beyond hopeless, and so is anyone that invites him to speak at their event. (And remember, this is where our top-tier DNC Chair candidates were, instead of marching with the masses.)

If this brewing movement wants to be taken seriously, it’ll have to start taking out elected Democrats in primaries. It’s clear that millions marching in the streets ain’t getting it done. 




Freakin' Dems ... we can't even get Elizabeth Warren to commit to full resistance

Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:10:29 +0000

Sen. Elizabeth Warren explains why she will be voting to confirm Ben Carson as head of HUD:

Yes, I have serious, deep, profound concerns about Dr. Carson’s inexperience to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Yes, I adamantly disagree with many of the outrageous things that Dr. Carson said during his presidential campaign. Yes, he is not the nominee I wanted.

But “the nominee I wanted” is not the test.

You have a vote. You can either cast a vote saying “I want this guy heading the department," or you cast one that says “Oh hell no, I don’t want this person heading the department.” So yeah, that is exactly the test. 

Warren further argues that if Carson goes down, Trump might send up someone even worse. And who knows, he very well might find someone even more stupid and unqualified than Carson. But who says Carson will lose? Republicans need only simple majorities to confirm these nominees, which is why all of them—regardless of their qualifications or ties to Russia—will be confirmed. So Carson doesn’t need Warren’s vote. He’s fine with the votes on his side of the aisle. 

Furthermore, what do Democrats like Warren get in return for that pro-Carson vote? Nothing! Because Republicans don’t need or care for it. There is no upside and loads of downside. Thus, Democrats should make sure Republicans own every single bit of this regime. Let them pass these nominees with nothing but Republican votes and a smattering of red-state Dems.

Resistance means resisting. All those people in the streets last Saturday didn’t march for Democrats to make nice with the GOP. They marched to resist—whether it’s Trump, or his acolytes like Carson. And if even progressive champions like Warren can’t figure that out, we really are in trouble. 




How do you even begin to fix a Democratic Party this f'd up? Primaries could be a start

Wed, 25 Jan 2017 17:43:39 +0000

You go to war with the Democratic Party you have, not the one you wish you had, but … I still want a new one! Over four million march all over the country, demanding resistance to the Trump regime, but god forbid Democrats in Congress follow suit! Instead, we literally get stupid arguments like “We gotta vote for Ben Carson because we need to win Trump voters.” Meanwhile, Trump voters are safely ensconced in a fake news bubble that no liberal argument will ever penetrate. So instead of voting for Carson to appeal to these people, why not fight for the people marching in the streets? Give them a reason to fight even harder! 

None of this resistance matters if Democrats can’t make huge gains in 2018—retaking the House and winning governorships and state legislatures. So how do you motivate this resistance to rally behind you? YOU FUCKING FIGHT FOR THEM! Goddam this is so patently obvious, why do we have a party that insists on ignoring the obvious? The GOP didn’t take full control of government by appeasing Democrats, they did so by fueling their own tea party, giving their activists reason to fight even harder! And they did so by saying “NO” over and over again. Our side, instead, appears intent on demoralizing our troops, even people we should be depending on like Sens. Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren. Freakin’ oppose everything!




NPR isn't liberal, so stop thinking that it is. Because it's not.

Wed, 25 Jan 2017 17:09:15 +0000

While several media operations have decided to join reality, calling the Trump regime’s lies what they are—lies—one outlet remains steadfastly committed to enabling the ruling regime’s propaganda efforts: NPR.

[A lie is defined as] "A false statement made with intent to deceive," Kelly says. "Intent being the key word there. Without the ability to peer into Donald Trump's head, I can't tell you what his intent was. I can tell you what he said and how that squares, or doesn't, with facts."

NPR's senior vice president for news, Michael Oreskes, says NPR has decided not to use the word "lie" and that Kelly got it right by avoiding that word.

"Our job as journalists is to report, to find facts, and establish their authenticity and share them with everybody," says Oreskes. "It's really important that people understand that these aren't our opinions. ... These are things we've established through our journalism, through our reporting ... and I think the minute you start branding things with a word like 'lie,' you push people away from you."

What a load of horseshit, rendering the entire concept of truth moot. If Trump says the sky is purple, how could we know if his little brain actually intended to utter such a stupid falsehood? Why, it’s probably all just a misunderstanding! 

You know, conservatives rally around conservative media, unified in message and purpose, while liberals consider themselves all superior because they listen to the soothing blather of NPR. 

Never forget—supposedly “liberal” news outlets like CNN, the New York Times, and NPR were some of the biggest purveyors of bullshit stories on Clinton’s emails (remember that non-story?) and the Clinton Foundation (remember that other non-story?)—stories that were of critical importance to the nation, until they suddenly, overnight, were not. (What changed? I wonder … )

With “liberal” media like that, who needs Breitbart?




Our top two DNC-chair candidates were not at Women's March, which proves misplaced priorities

Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:20:03 +0000

I’ve all but tuned-out the DNC chairman’s race. Some of you still think it’s about Clinton Democrats versus Sanders Democrats, but it’s not. It’s about a bunch of guys looking to maintain the status quo, offering no serious proposals to reform the primary system or how state parties get funded. They all seem to be running for “party chair on TV” rather than offering anything even remotely looking like real change. And on the merits, there is zero distinction between them.

On virtually every question asked by moderator Joy-Ann Reid, the candidates were in near-perfect agreement. 

If you want to get excited because one supported Bernie Sanders and the other did not, then knock yourself out. Either way, it’s not going to change the party one whit. And how can you tell? Because while millions of Dems were marching in the street this Saturday, most of these guys had different priorities.

Instead of hobnobbing with the masses, they spent the weekend at David Brock’s donor gathering in Florida. 

[A] number of the most influential figures in Democratic politics—the people who are ostensibly responsible for translating this energy into political and electoral action—missed the marches completely because they were at a retreat for bajillionaire donors [...]

  • Five of the candidates running for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, including Keith Ellison and Thomas Perez. (The one candidate who marched instead of attending the retreat was South Bend, Indiana, mayor [...] Pete Buttigieg

This is the most depressing DNC Chair’s race ever. 




Aww, delicate snowflake Trump is 'demoralized' because people hate him so much!

Mon, 23 Jan 2017 22:00:19 +0000

When it comes to metro rides, not only did the popular vote loser lag far behind both of real President Barack Obama’s inaugurations and Saturday’s Women’s March, but also behind an average weekday. 

And given that his inauguration was actually held on a weekday, that makes it extra pathetic.

So the question is: what’s more pathetic—the size of his crowd (and shitty poll numbers and ratings), or his reaction to that reality

[H]e found hundreds of thousands of protesters chanting just a few blocks from his new home on the first morning he woke up there.

That has left the new White House feeling besieged from Day 1, fueling the president’s grievances and, in the view of some of his aides, necessitating an aggressive strategy to defend his legitimacy [...]

When he awoke on Saturday morning, after his first night in the Executive Mansion, the glow was gone, several people close to him said, and the new president was filled anew with a sense of injury.

Or as the man-child’s own personal Baghdad Bob said at today’s press conference, it’s “demoralizing” to Trump. The man simply cannot function without large, adoring crowds. 

If our narcissist-in-chief feels like this after just a few days on the job and one big protest, he’s not going to last, is he? A few more protests may actually break him. Let’s snap him in half. 




Finding a liberal savior isn't the solution to the Democrats' problems. Riding a populist wave is.

Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:14:01 +0000

Stuff like this makes me want to tear my hair out:

[O]peratives and elected officials frequently bemoan the lack of a single national leader or center of gravity on the left."

Quick, name the leader of the tea party! Of course, there isn’t one. Sure, there are “leaders,” but none have a high public profile. That works for three reasons:

1) Their movement isn’t beholden to any single person who may die, quit, or be brought down because of personal foibles. That works extra well for the tea party, since what leadership they have is made up of cranks and lunatics. Imagine how much easier it would’ve been for the left to discredit the tea party if we could’ve trained our fire on a single individual or small group of them? 




Moron upset that Trump is doing what he promised to do, not what she wishes he'd do

Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:44:09 +0000

Oy vey …

I voted for Trump, not against Planned Parenthood

When you vote for someone, it’s a package deal. You don’t get to pick and choose.

My vote for Trump was not a vote against Planned Parenthood. I voted for him based on the issues he campaigned on: creating jobs, making health care more affordable, and making our country great again. I voted for him because I trust him to get our economy moving again. 

Trump campaigned on hating Latinos, hating Muslims, and hating women—aka “making America great again.” He also campaigned on “draining the swamp,” which he promptly did by stocking his cabinet with Wall Street billionaires. He campaigned on making Russia great again. BUT, making health care more affordable? Creating jobs? That was empty boilerplate, absent any details on how he’d do it. If you voted for that, then you are a fucking moron. Don’t sit there and pretend that you’re somehow being betrayed when he does exactly what he promised to do. 

The guy is a sexual predator. Overtly so. Self-admitted! And you’re going to be surprised and outraged when he and his party target Planned Parenthood? My fucking god! 

You want to vote for someone based on hating others, aka “Making America Great,” then you’re going to get someone who fucking hates others. And you don’t get to exclude yourself from his targets, hoping that he gives a shit that you voted for him.




We have six candidates vying to be DNC chair—and not a single real reformer among them

Mon, 09 Jan 2017 19:58:17 +0000

There are six declared candidates for chair of the Democratic National Committee: Rep. Keith Ellison; outgoing Labor Secretary Tom Perez; executive director of the Idaho Democratic Party Sally Boynton Brown; chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party Raymond Buckley; South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and South Carolina party chair Jaime Harrison

I was supporting NARAL president Ilyse Hogue. With her out of the race I’m officially neutral and, to be honest, not feeling it for any of these guys. Buckley will obviously work to maintain the Iowa-New Hampshire duopoly, and Harrison’s South Carolina also benefits from the current primary calendar system. In any case, none of them have, in anything I dug up, offered tangible changes to the presidential selection process such as the ones I previously laid out. (Although the fact that Harrison is the first African-American chair of any South Carolina political party is an amazing accomplishment. The fact that he is a lobbyist for the Podesta Group while serving as SC chair, less so.) If the chair of the Idaho Democratic Party had led local candidates to amazing victories, I might be taking her more seriously. Not to mention, I couldn’t find any campaign site at all. Buttigieg’s campaign website literally lacks any platform at all.   

That really leaves two serious candidates for the job—Ellison and Perez. I’ve already noted Ellison’s wholly uninspiring platform. A staffer promised me more sizzle once the cattle-call process begins. God, I hope so. As I wrote, Terry McAuliffe could’ve written Ellison’s platform. There is no reform in his proposal. Zero. Other than a few nibbles in the margins, it maintains the status quo. 

That leaves Perez, whose platform is pretty much a carbon copy of Ellison’s. There is pretty much zero disagreement between the two, so Perez’s suffers from the same problem as Ellison’s—there is zero hint of reform, of doing things differently. There isn’t a single reformer running for DNC Chair.




What the f*ck is Ron Fournier doing moderating a Democratic National Committee chair debate?

Mon, 09 Jan 2017 19:02:39 +0000

Insane.

The third DNC Future Forum, which will take place in Detroit, Michigan, on Saturday, February 4 at Wayne State University Community Arts Auditorium, will be moderated by Ron Fournier of Crain’s Detroit Business.

Ours is a self-loathing party, refusing to treat this asshole like the idiotic right-wing hack that he is. He’s a guy wooed by John McCain to work on staff, and who has incessantly pushed Democrats to cut Social Security and Medicare. Fournier thinks Obama’s problem is that he didn’t “lead” (by which he means “engage with Republicans” enough), and once wrote that Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor had to explain, during her confirmation hearings, why she “[looked] different than every other family-loving American".

How about his love for Third Way, or his outright inability to grasp simple concepts like “filibuster reform,” betraying his utter shallowness and stupidity. Oh, and if that wasn’t making the case enough, how about this?

x

There is no reason Fournier should be anywhere near any DNC chair debate. He must be replaced immediately. 

And if existing candidates want an easy excuse to stand out from the crowd, here it is. Call for a moderator change or threaten to sit this one out. Major kudos to whoever does that. 




Republicans won't be in any hurry to make Puerto Rico the 51st state

Mon, 09 Jan 2017 18:13:02 +0000

The newly elected Puerto Rican representative to Congress, a Republican, has introduced a statehood bill. It won’t pass, but this isn’t the reason why:

Some predict that the Republican-controlled Congress will not take the bill seriously because of the potential cost of admitting a financially strapped state to the Union

Ha ha ha ha! If Puerto Rico had Utah-style politics, it would be admitted in a heartbeat. The reason they won’t is because of simple politics—Puerto Rico would bolster the ranks of Democrats in Congress. Its two senators would likely be Democratic, and of its five House seats, at least a majority would end up Democratic. It’s the same reason DC isn’t becoming a state anytime soon.

Now, assuming Congress didn’t want to expand the size of the chamber (which hasn’t happened in over 100 years), those five new seats would likely come at the expense of Texas, Florida, Washington, California, and Minnesota (based on the current maps). The net partisan change might actually be zero, or it could be more or less depending on the new 2022 maps. But in any case, Republicans won’t be in any hurry to give Democrats the likely assist. 

Now, Boricua voters have never voted straight-up for statehood, and there’s no guarantee they would do so given the chances. But its elected leadership has never been more aggressively pushing statehood, and the island’s current economic woes could very well scramble local sentiment. But if such a push fails in Congress, it won’t be because of any silly notion of finances or deficits. The only question that matters is partisan control. 




Republicans pretend having taxpayers pay for stupid border wall is the same as Mexico paying for it

Fri, 06 Jan 2017 19:18:15 +0000

Campaign Action As we learned earlier today, Mexico just isn’t going to pay for any wall anytime ever, so taxpayer dollars have to be coughed up for the project. Thus, Republicans are considering allocating that money for the wall in the must-pass government spending bill due in April. But there’s a problem—Democrats can filibuster it. And they should. Which presents a conundrum to the GOP. Is this really a hill worth dying on? So, of course, they’re trying to scare Democrats into early submission: GOP lawmakers and aides believe they could win a public relations war over the matter by daring Democrats — particularly vulnerable red-state senators up for reelection next year — to shutter the government over one of Trump's most popular campaign pledges. 1) Donald Trump lost. There was nothing “popular” about Donald Trump. He lost, if by “losing” we consider the traditional democratic definition of losing—getting fewer votes. He has zero mandate. 2) Republicans need eight Democrats to break filibuster. There are 10 red-state Democrats up for re-election in 2018: Jon Tester (MT), Joe Donnelly (IN), Sherrod Brown (OH), Claire McCaskill (MO), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Bill Nelson (FL), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Bob Casey (PA), Joe Manchin (WV), and Tammy Baldwin (WI). Republicans won’t get Brown or Baldwin, or probably Stabenow. I’d be surprised if Nelson played along. So this is a tall order under any circumstances.  3) But most importantly, Trump didn’t just promise to build a wall, THIS is what he promised: xMexico will pay for the wall!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 1, 2016 So by asking the American taxpayers to foot the bill, he is explicitly breaking his promise.  If that’s the argument Republicans want to make, bring it on. We won’t have to worry too much about who wins the public relations war on that one. [...]



Democrats can no longer bail out Republican voters. They're up sh--t's creek.

Thu, 05 Jan 2017 18:02:43 +0000

It’s hard to find any silver linings in our current political situation. They exist! They’re just hard to find, and particularly hard to stomach at the moment. Whatever benefits will accrue won’t happen for several years, and we can genuinely wonder if there’ll even be a planet in four years after popular vote loser Donald Trump is done with the place. 

Campaign Action

But there is one silver lining that I’m enjoying right now—the comeuppance Republican voters will get when they no longer have Democrats to bail them out. Finally, those assholes are getting exactly what they voted for, and only what they voted for. 

For too long it’s been easy to vote Republican. They could cast their angry vote (whether out of racism, or bigotry, or mean-spiritedness) for Republicans, always knowing that some Democratic-held institution (the presidency, a filibuster-empowered Senate minority, etc.) would mitigate the worst excesses. They could vote for a Congress happy to pass dozens of Obamacare repeals, all the time spared the repercussions of those votes thanks to President Barack Obama. They could vote for the people promising to eliminate the minimum wage, all the while knowing Democrats would fight to ensure that wouldn’t happen. They could vote for warmongers, all the while knowing they or their kids wouldn’t be shipped off to die in Iran or Syria because, again, the Democrats would hold the line.

In short, there were no consequences to voting Republican. Congratulations to them. That’s no longer the case.