HomeUncategorized11/29 News Roundup & Open Thread – Bernie’s Resolution to Stop War in Yemen Advances , Sanders Institute Hosts Progressive Leaders & More
avatar
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
Audio and Video Files
 
 
 
Other File Types
 
 
 
49 Comment threads
61 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
phatkhatTheLeftistheCenterBennywi60polarbear4 Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
humphrey

I have yet to see how each Dem voted on the resolution.

Benny

All of the Dems voted yea, as did the two indies, Bernie and Angus.

Here are the No votes:

Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Gardner (R-CO)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lankford (R-OK)
McConnell (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Wicker (R-MS)

humphrey

Thanks.

Benny

Senators Seeking To Shoot Down Yemen Bill Were Paid By Saudi Lobbyists

Meanwhile a new report published by a government watchdog group called the Centre for International Policy (CIP) has identified a handful of Senators seeking to halt the resolution who took money from pro-Saudi lobbyists in 2017.

Predictably, they voted against advancing the resolution.

According to Al-Jazeera:

At least five of the 37 Republican Senators who voted against advancing a resolution limiting the United States’s involvement in the war in Yemen have received campaign contributions from pro-Saudi lobbying groups.

Roy Blunt, John Boozman, Richard Burr, Mike Crapo and Tim Scott all received financial contributions from firms representing Saudi interests between 2016 and 2017, according to a recent investigation by the Centre for International Policy (CIP).

One of those senators received close to $20,000 from the Saudis. The report continues:

Blunt, one of the two Senators from Missouri, received at least $19,200 in campaign contributions from firms representing Saudi Arabia in 2017, the CIP said, with Boozman, Burr, Crapo and Scott, representing Arkansas, North Carolina, Idaho and South Carolina respectively, receiving contributions ranging from $1,000-$2,500 between 2016 and 2017.

Benny

Bernie is likely to bring this up in his keynote tomorrow at the Sanders Institute. Some of the “Gathering” will be livestreamed on FB, I think.

Benny

Caught this on Chris Hayes’ show. Not a great video, but it’s fresh!

Benny

jcitybone

Barf.
It’s amazing how irrelevant DK has been to the progressive movement. And thats a good thing. Sell out websites don’t make for long-lasting movements.
I don’t even understand Arnando’s incoherence.

polarbear4

Me neither. 🙂

Benny

magsview

That’s kinda gross. Talk about selling out!

magsview

I wasn’t happy to read Bernie’s book’s subtitle myself. Not sure why he had to ‘go there’.

It gave major assholes like Armando ammunition and asshole elevators like Markos cheerfully jumps in with his absurd “cult” accusation. Meanwhile, what do you call the #StillWithHer people?? Third-time’s-a-charm cultists?

TheLeftistheCenter

Armando is a tool, me and him have had it out a few times and given as soon as Bernie announces I am prepping a TOP diary (one that will probably finally get me banned for good lol), I expect another run in 😉

jcitybone

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/what-elizabeth-warrens-foreign-policy-speech-means/576928/

On Thursday at American University, Senator Elizabeth Warren will outline her own foreign-policy vision. Her speech—shared exclusively with The Atlantic—charts a careful course, emphasizing progressive ideals while also celebrating the American order. The 2020 presidential campaign is still in its infancy. But it’s already becoming clear that, when it comes to foreign policy, Warren’s vision is more conventional; Bernie Sanders’s is more radical. And both leave crucial questions unresolved.

In the tradition of Henry Wallace, George McGovern, and Jesse Jackson, Sanders has decoupled progressive ideals from American dominance. In a speech last year in Missouri, he cited America’s coups against Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and Salvador Allende in Chile as evidence that “far too often, American intervention and the use of American military power … have caused incalculable harm.” Sanders also promoted the United Nations as a key vehicle for solving global problems. Then, last month, in a speech at Johns Hopkins, he included both U.S. adversaries like Russia and close U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel as part of a “new authoritarian axis,” and suggested that combatting it would require a “global progressive movement.”

In his two speeches, Sanders called for a more peaceful, more just, and more environmentally sustainable world, but he never suggested that achieving those goals required maintaining America’s global dominance. In fact, he avoided the subject of great-power competition entirely. He mentioned China only three times: twice as a potential partner in fighting climate change and once as a potential partner in denuclearizing North Korea.

Warren’s alternative is less radical. Instead of separating the pursuit of progressive ideals from the maintenance of American dominance, Warren tries—uncomfortably—to square the two. Unlike Sanders, she doesn’t challenge the narrative of a virtuous cold war in which America rose to superpower status while at the same time spreading liberty and prosperity. She embraces it. “There’s a story we tell as Americans, about how we built an international order—one based on democracy, human rights, and improving economic standards of living for everyone,” Warren’s speech will declare. “It wasn’t perfect—we weren’t perfect—but our foreign policy benefited a lot of people around the world.” If Sanders is echoing Henry Wallace—the Democrat who in the 1940s challenged the necessity of a cold war—Warren is taking the more conventional path of depicting herself as the heir to Harry Truman.

For Warren, American foreign policy only starts going wrong “in the 1980s,” when “Washington’s focus shifted from policies that benefit everyone to policies that benefit a handful of elites, both here at home and around the world.” The chronology is odd: American foreign policy benefited “everyone” in the 1970s, during Vietnam? It’s another sign that Warren is less interested than Sanders in challenging American exceptionalism, less interested in looking at the dark side of America’s history as a superpower.

That different history sets up a different description of America’s challenge today. Warren is no hawk: She wants to reduce the defense budget, end the war in Afghanistan, and end U.S. support for the war in Yemen. But she’s more comfortable with a foreign policy of us-versus-them, in which America bolsters its allies and contains its foes. Unlike Sanders, she doesn’t mention the United Nations, which Wallace saw as the vehicle for transcending great-power conflict. In a forthcoming Foreign Affairs essay, she instead calls for “strengthening crucial alliances like those with NATO, South Korea and Japan.” And Warren goes easier on America’s allies. In his Johns Hopkins speech, Sanders chastised Saudi Arabia by name 13 times. Warren mentions it only three times. Sanders devoted a paragraph to rising authoritarianism in Israel, something Warren ignores.

TheLeftistheCenter

Less Radical = more Neo-Lib

jcitybone

https://www.commondreams.org/further/2018/11/28/heres-state-mississippi

This week, Mississippi – a state that boasts the highest number of lynchings in the country and only got around to banning slavery in 2013 – elected to the Senate Cindy Hyde-Smith, an unrepentant, Trump-loving, white supremacist and tawdry relic of the old South whose victory, in the words of one pundit, proves “that deep-seated racism is alive and well in the United States.” With her win in the run-off election against Democrat Mike Espy, a black former congressman and Clinton Agriculture Secretary, Hyde-Smith proved herself a woman who’s “sold out lock-stock-and-conscience to the state GOP’s continual racist drum beat.” She also helped confirm some larger, ugly, depressingly persistent truths.

Nationally, the GOP is now officially the party of white dominance, Klan complicity and a race-baiting Trump who at a Tupelo rally brazenly dog-whistled, “How does he (Espy) fit in in Mississippi?” More locally, a state with a bloody history, a much-disenfranchised black population of over 35%, and a 50th ranking nationwide in income, health care, child mortality and college readiness remains steeped in the toxic lost-cause myths of the Confederacy and a profound racism “built into the very bones of this place.” “For weeks, we’ve been hearing pundits say that Mississippi was ready to enter the twenty-first century,” Andy Borowitz had Hyde-Smith tell her supporters. “Tonight we proved them wrong.”

jcitybone

Would she run if Bernie does?

Is This The Beginning Of Tulsi Gabbard’s Bid For President?

Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has a busy weekend with pit stops planned in Vermont and New Hampshire, where she’s expected to pump up her progressive bonafides and put out her 2020 presidential feelers.

The congresswoman’s East Coast sojourn comes as speculation mounts over her plans to run for president. Gabbard has boosted her national profile in recent years as an outspoken opponent of U.S. military adventurism and critic of national Democratic Party politics.

She’s traveled to North Dakota to protest against an oil pipeline and to Flint, Michigan, to raise awareness about that city’s water crisis. Along the way she’s made appearances in Iowa and New Hampshire, both of which are stomping grounds for any presidential hopeful.

Another indication Gabbard is aiming higher is her upcoming book, “Is Today the Day? Not Another Political Memoir,” that comes out next year.

Politicians often pen books to promote their ideas and develop their image in advance of the heightened scrutiny that comes with presidential candidacy. In recent years it’s almost become a prerequisite, from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to Sanders and Kamala Harris.

Benny

We know who Tulsi is, but we are in the tiny minority. I doubt many people outside of TOP, TPW, C99, and JPR (and elite members of the DNC) know anything about her. She will have a massive uphill climb if she decides to run.

magsview

Maybe this will help people get to know her? Then, if Trump wins in 2020, she might be well-positioned to run in 2024? All hypothetical right now, obviously.

jcitybone

‘Buy my book’

The faces of likely candidates can generally be found in three places at this stage: Iowa, New Hampshire and a bookstore near you.

These are boom times for generically inspirational titles and abstract nouns.

“This Fight Is Our Fight,” by Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

“The Truths We Hold,” by Senator Kamala Harris of California.

“Where We Go from Here,” by Mr. Sanders.

Other high-profile Democrats had already authored their entries in recent years, including Senators Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.

The upsides are many: A book tour presents an excuse to travel the country and introduce likely campaign themes in interviews without explicitly campaigning, while exposing audiences to choice bits of biography that they might not have known.

The downsides: wrist soreness from autographing copies, bruised egos if the title plummets on Amazon.

Benny

Benny

jcitybone

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/11/28/why-pelosi-wont-have-to-worry-about-a-tea-party-of-the-left/?utm_term=.76fd15c290de&utm_source=reddit.com

But there are important reasons the progressives are extremely unlikely to create the same kind of disruption that the Freedom Caucus and far-right members generally have created on the Republican side. It has to do with who these progressives are, and some basic differences between conservatism and liberalism.

In theory, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, made up of the more liberal Democrats, could do the same thing. It has 77 members in the current Congress and will have more in the next, though not all of them are as progressive as you might expect.

But there’s a powerful reason they won’t: These are people who believe in government. That’s not true of the Freedom Caucus, which is made up in large part of members who came to Congress in the 2010 tea party wave and after, railing against the evil of government in all its forms. They’ll threaten to shut down the federal government because it doesn’t bother them too much if the government shuts down, except insofar as that might create a political problem. They came to Washington to break, not build, things.

The opposite is true of the progressives. They want government to do more and believe it plays a vital role in Americans’ lives; the idea of shutting it down over a budget dispute is abhorrent to them. That means they won’t exercise that veto power.

Something similar applies on other kinds of legislation. Because they care about policy, they tend to be pragmatic enough to be willing to take half a loaf if it’s a genuinely meaningful half. For instance, some (though not all that many) of the new members have called for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished and its responsibilities moved to other agencies. But imagine (in some future in which Democrats also controlled the Senate and the White House) that a package of reforms moved through the House that made serious changes to curb ICE’s abuses but didn’t go so far as shutting the agency down. Would the progressives say it was all or nothing and refuse to vote for the bill? No way.

I suspect that the progressives understand that the party is already moving left and will satisfy many of their substantive demands. They’ll keep pushing for even more, because that’s what their role is, to move the party as far as it can go and then try to get it to go even farther. But they’ll also be willing to bank wins when they’re available.

jcitybone

Definitely, the article is right that there are some in the CPC who might be less progressive than expected. For example, there are a few who are also in the New Dem coalition. But in the end I think it’s better to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

House Progressives Are Set To Wield A Lot Of Power In 2019

The liberal wing of the Democratic caucus in the U.S. House is going to be bigger than ever when the new Congress starts in January. It’ll be much larger than the conservative wing, and that has major implications, both for the next two years and potentially for 2021.

“Duh,” you might say, “of course there are more liberal than conservative Democrats.” But the two wings used to be much more equally matched. And 2018 represented a big jump in the progressive ranks.

I don’t think the progressives are going to just placidly follow Pelosi’s lead and vote for whatever she negotiates with Trump and the Republicans in the Senate. Instead, I expect the group to push the party to the left in these negotiations. In some ways, the progressives in 2019-20 could act a lot like the House Freedom Caucus did in 2017-2018. The Freedom Caucus, a bloc of the most conservative members of the House, often successfully forced House Speaker Paul Ryan to make bills more conservative. Democratic leaders in the Senate, for example, were hinting earlier this year that they would agree to fund Trump’s border wall in exchange for a provision basically turning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program into a federal law. Trump didn’t take the deal, so it never came to a vote. But I don’t think that kind of deal will be much of an option going forward — progressive Democrats are unlikely to view such a compromise favorably, and would likely fight to limit any wall funding. (Some of them were pushing a provision earlier this year to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.)

So now is the time for the Progressive Caucus to start pushing the Democrats to adopt more left-leaning ideas. And they are already starting to do that — even before the new Congress starts. For instance, New York’s newly elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other House progressives are calling for a “Green New Deal,” an aggressive, comprehensive proposal to address climate change. The progressives are also opposing a Pelosi initiative to require a three-fifths majority in the House to pass any bill that would raise income taxes on any Americans except the wealthiest 20 percent. That rule, the progressives argue, could hamstring Democrats if they want to pursue more aggressive proposals, like free college or Medicare-for-all.

“The comparison to the Freedom Caucus reveals the same dynamic. The Freedom Caucus when the Republicans were in the majority deliberately chose to keep their size down …. The Progressive Caucus doesn’t have a similar barrier to entry, and this may mean that some opportunists will join but ultimately won’t share the hardcore progressive ideals of their colleagues,” she added.

I think Bloch Rubin is right — this bloc will be hard to organize, and it will be tough to get everyone behind one position at the same time. That said, the progressives in the House are part of a broader tide moving the party to the left: More Democratic voters are identifying themselves as liberal; a huge swath of the party’s politicians are embracing Medicare-for-all; fairly liberal candidates are running and winning, even in traditionally conservative areas. The liberals in the House are very likely to push their colleagues left. The only question is how far.

magsview

in the end I think it’s better to be inclusive rather than exclusive

I tend to agree with you. Better to welcome people into the tent than block the entrance to the tent. (See 2016 Dem primary & TOP for just two examples of how that can be less than productive)

jcitybone

She sounds ok although she was originally a member of the Blue Dogs when she was first elected, but later dropped out.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/cheri-bustos-elected-dccc-chair

House Democrats elected Illinois Rep. Cheri Bustos to chair the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on Wednesday.

She won in the first round of voting, ahead of Washington Reps. Suzan DelBene and Denny Heck. The tally was 117 for Bustos, with Heck at 83 and DelBene at 32.

Throughout the 2018 midterms, Bustos often spoke about the need for the party to stay focused on economic issues and health care and avoid getting mired in social issues or the Russian investigation. She’s emphasized the importance of showing up and talking to non-Democrats. She holds regular “Supermarket Saturday” and “Cheri on Shift” programs in which she engages with constituents in her district. She’s also piloted a bootcamp in her district to train Democrats to run for local office.

magsview

I’ve been suspicious of the DCCC in the past, but Bustos sounds right on here, so maybe there’s hope! I wonder if all of her engaging with her constituents influenced her on what the people actually want/need.

polarbear4

Taibbi weighs in.

I have no words for the Politico piece. We’ve gone from unnamed sources to unnamed authors. https://t.co/O8wjUKF2I2

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) November 29, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

orlbucfan

I do, Matt. Politico is a RW rag. Simple.

polarbear4

It's hard to convey the moral rot in this political economy framework. It's basically we'll help the plutocrats ship jobs to Mexico, then say 'let them eat Medicaid,' then fund academics to help us understand that popular anger is due to racism. https://t.co/mfvTkOhKXt

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) November 29, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

magsview

This is from Canada (British Columbia) but I thought some of you might be interested in this:

I hope they fight like hell.

jcitybone

Imagine if all states had rules like California.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ol-2-enter-the-fray-dear-paul-ryan-california-s-voting-1543518262-htmlstory.html

On Thursday, soon-to-be-ex House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called the Golden State’s voting system “bizarre” and suggested there was something hinky about how long it took to know the outcome in certain races.

“When you have candidates who win the absentee ballot vote and then lose three weeks later because of provisionals, that’s really bizarre,” Ryan said. “I just think that’s a very, very strange outcome.”

Certainly Ryan and his caucus are dismayed about the outcome in the midterm elections, losing half of the already small number of GOP House seats in California, not to mention control of the House altogether. But if he’s bewildered by California’s voting system, perhaps it is because he’s not used to states that are making it easier for people to vote.

As we have pointed out, California has enacted all sorts of measures in recent years to ensure than any qualified adult can vote if he or she wants to, from enabling people to register on election day to allowing mail ballots to be counted even if they arrive three days after the polls close. All these efforts have resulted in record registration and in record turnout.

As for why Ryan’s party lost so badly in California? That was bound to happen — the state has become more liberal, and the independent redistricting panel means that no one party can manipulate the political lines to their advantage.

If that’s bizarre, it doesn’t say much about what goes on in other states on election day

wi60

Ryan should mind his own business and check into the ultra Gerrymandered districts in his own state(Wi) before he worries about Cali. So bad people are filing federal lawsuits.

jcitybone

http://time.com/5466878/trump-cohen-russia/

For two years, Donald Trump has repeated a simple defense when faced with questions about Russia: He has no personal business with it. But dramatic testimony from his former lawyer Thursday shows that he’s been carefully hedging those statements.

On Thursday morning, longtime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen told a Manhattan courtroom that he was pursuing a potential development in Moscow through June of 2016, weeks after Trump had effectively sewn up the Republican presidential nomination. According to an updated plea agreement with federal prosecutors, Cohen discussed the project with Trump and his family members on multiple occasions, emailed and talked with Russian officials about it and made plans for both himself and Trump to visit Russia to advance it.

What’s more, Cohen admitted that he had lied in a letter to the House and Senate intelligence committees and in testimony to the Senate committee about his work on the development, falsely claiming that the deal fell through months earlier, in January of 2016 — before the Iowa caucuses — and that Trump had never considered traveling to Russia to work on it.

“I made these statements to be consistent with [Trump’s] political messaging and to be loyal to [Trump],” Cohen reportedly told the court.

And they were consistent. In tweets, interviews, press conferences, a presidential debate and a letter from a law firm released publicly since the summer of 2016, Trump has repeatedly claimed that he and the Trump Organization “have” — note the verb tense — no loans, business deals, real estate investments or professional contacts with Russia. But those statements did not include the fact that his business had been in discussions about a potential development in Moscow just weeks earlier.

jcitybone

https://www.newyorker.com/news/swamp-chronicles/michael-cohen-raises-serious-questions-about-donald-trump-and-his-business-interests

It is damaging and troubling enough that a candidate for the Presidency, throughout his primary campaign, was actively pursuing a business deal that required a favor from the President of a rival nation. It is damaging enough to learn that the President, his children, his business partners, and his campaign officials lied and dissembled frequently about this deal and other contacts with Russia. It places the need for Mueller to complete his investigation in even sharper light. Cohen’s revelations call into question much of what Donald Trump and others have said publicly and, perhaps in some cases, under oath, regarding his business interests. It’s a point that Adam Schiff, the presumptive future chair of the House Intelligence Committee, made, saying that, after Cohen’s guilty plea, “We believe other witnesses were untruthful before our committee.”

orlbucfan

What a load of horse hockey! Mueller is a Bush/Cheney Repuke. He’s had 2 years of spending taxpayers’ coin to go after the orange moron. Orange moron has been money laundering thru international criminal cabals to prop up his real estate jokes. It’s been going on for decades. So when is Mueller going to actually send one of these tainted FRighties to jail?! What’s he waiting on, “The Rapture”? I am over it! BAH!

TheLeftistheCenter

Remember the cover up is often worse than the crime, so all this ‘after mess’ may end up being more damaging than the original evidence.

wi60

Its beginning to look a lot like Christmas 🙂

5bfddc6a8cb17_image.jpg
Benny

polarbear4

Can we post one? I don’t know how to post anything from Facebook. Guess we just go to our revolution on Facebook.

polarbear4

Link given on Twitter. Says it will be on Facebook and YouTube and Twitter

https://m.facebook.com/attn

If you scroll down it shows it as an upcoming event.

TheLeftistheCenter

I almost feel like this also is tied into Bernie putting together a cabinet in some way as well as his global progressive movement, they all seems like pieces in the same save the world jig saw puzzle.

magsview

That would be good.

polarbear4

doesn’t even show the link.

polarbear4

Republican billionaires helped elect rising centrist Democrats — and are funding the effort to weaken an incoming Democratic House speaker https://t.co/kxvd1Wl08N by @lhfang

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) November 29, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

orlbucfan

Pizz on them!

phatkhat

Around here, if you are not an R, you don’t have a chance of election. So now the Rs are whining that some Ds are running as Rs, just to have a chance. This puts that scenario on steroids, and it is a lot more dangerous.

Who needs Rs when you have Ds like those in the article? They really ARE DINOS.

UGH.

polarbear4

Acknowledging that Palestinians are human is apparently enough to get you fired from CNN.

Supporting war, apartheid, and fascism? Not so much. https://t.co/dQGIdBJJnr

— "Angry Jon Snow" Graziano (@jvgraz) November 29, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

polarbear4

I support Palestinian freedom. I support Palestinian self-determination. I am deeply critical of Israeli policy and practice.

I do not support anti-Semitism, killing Jewish people, or any of the other things attributed to my speech. I have spent my life fighting these things.

— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) November 29, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

This is the guy that got fired.

magsview

phatkhat

I had heard, of course, about the problems for immigrants needing the safety net, but was not aware that it was quite as big a threat as it is. Nor how far-reaching and damaging. I also didn’t know that there was an official policy that would hugely damage disabled people, children and families, up for public comment.

Read the story and leave your comment at the link provided.

magsview

A continuation of yesterday’s news on Jeffries:

polarbear4

Corpse money seems to turn people to the dark side, while thinking they are doing good. The Ring of Mordor.

magsview

The “kids” may just wrest control from us in the end, or at least try to. I certainly hope they do if necessary.

Skip to toolbar