HomeUncategorized8.18-19 Open Threads
newest oldest most voted
Notify of


This is precisely what Bernie meant by “blank check” or endless cart.


New York Times Faces Backlash Over Dan Goldman Endorsement Debacle

Over the weekend, the New York Times editorial board unveiled its endorsements for the state’s upcoming congressional primary elections, backing a slate of Sean Patrick Maloney in NY-17, Jerry Nadler in NY-12, and Dan Goldman in NY-10.

The spectacle of the Times endorsing three white guys was itself enough to draw attention, but capping it off by backing Goldman, a self-funding heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, has brought an unusual amount of attention to the paper’s endorsement process.

The extremely crowded race in a deep-blue district features a current member of Congress, a former member of Congress, two members of the state Assembly, and one city councilmember. Goldman, a former counsel in the first Trump impeachment, has not held public office and has thus far given $4 million of his exorbitant personal wealth to his campaign. That type of self-funding has previously been a disqualification for a Times endorsement, but the paper of record made an exception for Goldman.

The paper also skipped the open primary for New York’s Third District, and missed an easy chance to endorse a nonwhite man in New York’s 16th, which pits incumbent Rep. Jamaal Bowman against Westchester County legislator Vedat Gashi and county legislator Catherine Parker.

As important in the context of the Times endorsement, Goldman’s family enjoys ties to members of the Sulzberger family, which has owned and run the New York Times Company for six generations. The paper’s current publisher and chair of its parent company is Arthur Gregg “A.G.” Sulzberger. One of the rival candidates, Rep. Mondaire Jones, alluded to that relationship in a joint press conference attacking Goldman on Monday alongside another candidate, Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou. “Look, I have no idea whether the generations of close family relationship between the Sulzbergers and the Goldmans had any role at all to play in the endorsement,” Jones said.

The Times editorial board insisted that the decision was based on merit, but also disclosed that the board answers to the publisher. A.G. Sulzberger did not recuse himself despite the ties between the Goldman and Sulzberger families, and has in the past overruled editorial board preferences. Sulzberger, who lives in the Tenth District, expressed an interest in the race internally, according to a political operative not working on behalf of any of the candidates who spoke directly with multiple members of the editorial board, and another person close to Sulzberger.

“[O]ur election endorsements are independent decisions that emerge through reporting and discussion by a board of experienced journalists, through individual interviews with candidates. This board reports directly to the opinion editor and, through her, to the publisher,” according to a statement from the Times, which added that Sulzberger and Goldman do not personally know each other. Asked if there were any contacts between Goldman and Sulzberger family members during the endorsement process, Goldman campaign spokesperson Simone Kanter said, “The answer to your question is ‘no.’” He also cited the Times’ statement.

This type of self-funding has previously been a disqualification for a Times endorsement, but the paper of record made an exception for Goldman.

Jones was featured so much in the text of the endorsement that without the headline it could have been seen as backing both men. The two experienced women of color in the race who are at or near the top of the polls, Niou and city councilmember Carlina Rivera, were not mentioned in the endorsement at all. New York’s Ross Barkan noted that the endorsement was part of a pattern of “the Times’ growing disdain for the progressive left.”

According to conversations with multiple members of the Jones camp, the campaign was under the strong impression that a majority of the editorial board members were in support of his campaign, though no final decision had been made. But the Jones camp also understood the influence of the Sulzberger family on the process, and in particular A.G. Sulzberger’s ability to tip the scales, as Jones alluded to in his comments. There was a broad awareness in Jonesworld that majority support from the board did not always translate to an endorsement, and when the endorsement went to Goldman, a belief that the family’s personal preference factored in.

PERHAPS NO OTHER NEWSPAPER ENDORSEMENT in the country matters as much as the Times’, particularly in the wealthier enclaves of New York City. It has the demonstrated capacity to move voters who are in its core audience. (The Times’ nod to Jones in 2020 helped him win his open primary in the district now pursued by Maloney.) Normally, the paper doesn’t get this opportunity, because seats come open so rarely. But a late change to redistricting in New York upended districts serving the affluent communities in Manhattan, giving the Times real power to shape certain races with its endorsement.

The ties between the Goldman and Sulzberger families include their mutual membership in elite D.C. circles. Shortly after announcing an abortive run for New York attorney general, Goldman banked a $1,000 check from Joseph Perpich, Cathy Sulzberger’s husband. It was the 81-year-old Perpich’s one and only contribution to a New York state political race.

Goldman’s mother, Susan Sachs Goldman, and Cathy Perpich (née Sulzberger), the sister of the previous New York Times publisher and aunt of its current one, both sat on the Board of Trustees of the elite Beltway private school Sidwell Friends, where all three Goldman children and all three Perpich (Sulzberger) children attended school. At Sidwell, Goldman was one year ahead of David Perpich, who sits on the board of directors of the New York Times Company and is the publisher of Times products The Athletic and Wirecutter. Duke Magazine, the university’s alumni publication, profiled Perpich as “The NYT’s Quiet Strategist” in 2020.

As a 16-year-old student at Sidwell in 1993, “Danny” Goldman was quoted in the Times reacting to Chelsea Clinton’s entry into the private school. Days later, The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz criticized the Times for running the story without disclosing Cathy Sulzberger’s presence on the Sidwell board.

Both the Times’ official statement and a tweet thread from the company’s PR feed are carefully worded. In the tweet thread, the paper stated that “there are no members of the Sulzberger family who have anything to do with candidate endorsements other than our publisher,” who is, of course, a Sulzberger. The thread stresses that the endorsements are “independent decisions” but adds that the board reports to the publisher, Sulzberger, through the opinion editor.

Daniel Okrent, the former public editor of the Times, had no knowledge of the specific endorsement in question, but explained that similar situations have happened before. “The publisher of the paper is the authority over the editorial page,” Okrent said. “It’s not infrequent that the board might want somebody, and the publisher wants someone else.”

Okrent didn’t find this instance particularly worthy of condemnation; after all, the publisher is ultimately responsible for what goes out under the paper’s name. In this case, he wasn’t sure whether it merited disclosure within the endorsement. “I can see how [the editorial board] would think, if we say he’s a family friend that would weaken our determination that he’s the best person for the job,” he noted.

THE ENDORSEMENT ITSELF IS UNUSUALLY WEAK. It leads by saying that Goldman and Jones stand out from the mostly unnamed rest of the field. (Former Watergate-era Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman and Assemblywoman Jo Anne Simon, along with Niou and Rivera, round out the top six candidates.) It highlights Goldman’s work on the Trump impeachment and says that “those who have worked with Mr. Goldman behind the scenes describe him as diligent and prepared and a person of integrity.” Longtime local reporter Errol Louis translated that to mean: “Queries within the alumni networks of Sidwell Friends, Yale, and Stanford Law, from which Goldman graduated, turned up good reports and no scandals.”

The endorsement celebrates Goldman “bring[ing] serious policy ideas to the race,” but only mentions his support for a “ban on stock trading by members of Congress,” which has already been widely embraced by a majority of Democrats. The endorsement lauds Goldman for assisting with some research while in law school on the book The New Jim Crow, but does not linger on Goldman’s immediate decision to become a prosecutor in the same criminal justice system the book had just lacerated.

Jones, by contrast, is described as a “prolific legislator” and a “bridge builder between the progressive wing of his party and its more moderate leadership.” The only mark against him is that he lacked experience working in the community he seeks to represent; Jones was elbowed out of his home district when Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, moved to a more favorable seat. But of course Goldman similarly lacks that experience; the endorsement points out that “Goldman would need to use his first term to convince the large numbers of lower-income and middle-class Americans he would represent that he understands the issues facing those constituents.”

The Times editorial board insisted that the decision was based on merit, but also disclosed that the board answers to the publisher.

The Times editorial board is also known to harbor ill will in general toward candidates who self-fund their campaigns, a vestige of the anti-corruption piety that harks to their mugwump roots. Goldman held off self-funding for much of the campaign, presumably fearful of losing the coveted endorsement. But on July 13, facing a cash shortfall, he dropped $1.24 million of his own money into his campaign coffers, and another $750,000 a week later. Goldman later donated an additional $2 million of his own money.

His opponents assumed the move had cost him the endorsement. In the past, when the Times has endorsed a wealthy candidate funding his own campaign, they’ve lashed themselves for it in the process. “This page cares deeply about making elections fair and open, and if Mr. [Michael] Bloomberg’s administration had been anything less than distinguished, his insistence on undermining the campaign finance system would disqualify him from our support,” the Times wrote in the past. “As it is, with that one caveat in mind, we enthusiastically endorse Michael Bloomberg for mayor.”

“Mr. Bloomberg’s current campaign approach reveals more about America’s broken system than his likelihood of fixing it,” the Times observed in declining to endorse Bloomberg for president. “Rather than build support through his ideas and experience, Mr. Bloomberg has spent at least $217 million to date to circumvent the hard, uncomfortable work of actual campaigning.”

But Goldman won the prize without so much as a mention that he had broken their cardinal rule.

Goldman had already leapt to the top of an Emerson College poll even before the Times endorsement was released. Though he takes only 22 percent of the vote in the poll, the unsettled field of candidates with similar ideologies could allow that small share to take the seat.

A similar progressive split vote led former Republican Jake Auchincloss to win a seat in the Boston area in 2020. There were also rumors in that race that a close relationship between the Auchincloss family and the owners of The Boston Globe, John and Linda Henry, led to Auchincloss winning that paper’s endorsement.

The Times editorial board’s endorsement process has embarrassed the paper in the past. The 2020 Democratic presidential co-endorsement of Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren was roundly derided two and a half years ago.

On Wednesday night, the NY-10 candidates debate at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn. Goldman, Jones, Niou, Rivera, and Simon will be on the stage.




Or that a 10 year old should be forced to give birth when her body isn’t quite developed to hold a fetus full term.

Paul ADK

The crazy is full of conflict and contradiction.



Democratic U.S. House candidate Mary Peltola defied expectations on Tuesday by outperforming her Republican rivals in Alaska, a surprise result in a deep-red state that comes as Democrats are bracing for a brutal midterm election season.

Peltola’s performance is more than just a hopeful sign for Democrats; it’s also potentially historic. If she wins, it would mark a first for the state’s Indigenous community — the former state representative would be the first Indigenous person from Alaska and first woman from Alaska to serve in Congress.

“I think about her as being in many ways a different kind of significant first,” said Debbie Walsh, the director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “It’s not just a woman in this seat, but it would be the first Native woman in this seat.”

Peltola, a former state lawmaker in Alaska, was technically on the ballot twice: She’s competing in both the special House election to fill the remainder of the late Rep. Don Young’s (R) term, as well as in the race to fill that same seat for a full term starting next year. In the latter race, Peltola easily survived the primary, which sees the top four vote-getters advance to the November general election. She came out ahead of a field of 22 candidates.

Peltola’s identity as an Indigenous Alaskan could impact the race as well, giving voice to a population in the state that has yet to be represented on Capitol Hill. Peltola herself is Yup’ik.

“Native women’s leadership is vital to all communities, but especially to the Native peoples. Peltola’s strong showing in the election demonstrates she has a powerful message which clearly resonated with the voters,” said Claudia Kauffman, the vice president and co-founder of the Native Action Network, a group dedicated to promoting Native women’s representation in leadership roles. “Given Alaska’s large Native population, and with only one US Congress position, Peltola is in a unique position and we are all watching and anticipating her success. “

A record number of Indigenous women were elected to Congress in 2020, including Kansas Rep. Sharice Davids (D-Kan.), Deb Haaland (D-N.M.) and Yvette Herrell (R-N.M.). Haaland has since left Congress to serve as the secretary of the Department of the Interior.

Walsh noted that while the number of Indigenous women in Congress remains low, Peltola’s candidacy could impact other Indigenous women seeking public office in the U.S.

“What we’re seeing is an opening up of doors,” Walsh said. “Peltola is someone who is following a path that we have seen.”“She’s served in the state legislature and now she’s running for Congress. She has taken advantage of a seat that was just kind of locked up for decades by one person. It’s a tough state in that way.”

“She’s stepped up and taken advantage of the moment,” she added.



Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death
Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death

Beto FLIPS Trump voters in STUNNING town hall appearance


But will they actually vote for him when the chips are down?


Maybe third time will be the charm.




The 🐢 is in whine and fear mode about the Senate;
Mitch McConnell conceded that Republicans face a tough task in flipping the Senate majority.

McConnell said that “candidate quality” has a lot to do with the races, a nod to the GOP’s current struggles.

Basically he fears they cant win without a firm gerrymander in place.


DCCC Test Ads Linking High Gas Prices to GOP

AS INFLATION SURGED earlier this year, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and other progressives began hammering away at corporate greed, accusing monopolies and huge industries of making record profits while claiming that they had no choice but to drive up prices and noting that gas prices were higher than underlying oil prices suggested they should be.

Initially, some in the Biden administration wanted to push this message too, using as their backup their strong record on antitrust and corporate greed, thanks to the Federal Trade Commission’s Lina Khan and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Rohit Chopra.

Some White House economists, however, fretted that the academic foundation behind the talking point that greed and price gouging were significantly behind the rising prices wasn’t sound enough.

For many on the left, that the White House was getting in its own way by splitting hairs was another example of the asymmetric warfare between Democrats and Republicans, who wouldn’t let trivialities such as whether it was true get in the way of their messaging.

Even while the White House was pushing back, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — the furthest thing on the planet from an anti-corporate populist organ — began asking pollsters to test some of that messaging, according to people familiar with the DCCC’s planning.

Starting around the middle of June, pollsters began testing versions of messaging that played off a bill House Democrats passed in May to crack down on price gouging. A DCCC aide put it simply: “House Democrats voted for a bill that would prevent gas companies from price gouging. Every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against it.” DCCC Chair Sean Patrick Maloney of New York was a sponsor of the legislation.

The message tested in polling goes like this: With gas prices going up, Republican X voted against cracking down on gas price gouging. Meanwhile, they took X thousands of dollars from the oil and gas industry.

“It tested well,” said one person involved, who was not authorized to speak to the press. “No. 1, everyone is pissed off at gas prices. No. 2, you can connect it very easily to oil and gas, and all these assholes have taken from oil and gas. Well, frankly, so have many Democrats.”

“Tying Republicans to Big Oil is very credible, so there’s a foundation to work with.”
Making the link between inflation, corporate corruption, and price gouging was also tested, though the oil and gas industry makes an easier villain than, say, Big Meat or Big Bread. The link between Republicans and Big Oil is strong enough in the public’s imagination already. Ben Tulchin, of Tulchin Research, which did the polling for Sanders’s 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns as well as for Eric Adams’s New York mayoral run, said that hitting the GOP for its coziness with oil companies was a smart move backed up by data. “Economic messaging is challenging, so it’s the best option available to Democrats,” he said. “Tying Republicans to Big Oil is very credible, so there’s a foundation to work with.”

The DCCC’s willingness to dabble in populist politics suggests a broader path forward for Democrats in the wake of the signing of the Inflation Reduction Act, which included the biggest investment in climate spending in history. The bill was watered down by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who profits handsomely from his own coal company. Yet it was opposed by every single Republican in both chambers of Congress. As the clean energy industry grows, those corporations will continue funneling money into the political system. If more Democrats swore off oil and gas money, the party would have more of an opportunity to paint Republicans as the party of Big Oil, yoking them with high gas prices and the ever-worsening consequences of the climate crisis.

Instead, though, Democratic primaries are suddenly becoming contests between nuclear-powered super PACs, with deep-pocketed groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel, billionaire Reid Hoffman’s interventions, and proliferating cryptocurrency super PACs all coming in to boost centrist candidates and beat back progressive ones. The result means that the party has fewer candidates who can credibly make the populist critique of corporate profiteering.

In Rhode Island’s 2nd Congressional District, state General Treasurer Seth Magaziner has dabbled in the populist gas price rhetoric, but it lands flat in the face of his more temperate tenure in the treasurer’s office and the moderate hue of his campaign.

His opponent David Segal, on the other hand, has spent his career challenging corporate interests, both as a local elected official and as a federal advocate for the group Demand Progress, though he trails in public polls. “Confronting the power of corporate special interests has been a throughline in my work, from my first run for office as part of a movement [for] fairer wages for workers in Providence to more recent national efforts to help revive the anti-monopoly movement and push back against revolving-door corruption in the federal government,” he said. “We won’t see sufficient action on the other major issues of the day unless we are willing to take on these impediments to progress.”