dailykos--2020-02-21--I Told Him Not to Testify and this is his Reward!

The witness had just been sworn in by the Judiciary Committee ’ s Chair .
He was beginning his opening remarks when the door to the hearing room swung open and the President of the United States walked into the hearing room .
All noise ceased .
No one completed a sentence .
No one said another thing as the President walked up the aisle and turned in front of the witness table approaching the witness who appeared frightened by the President ’ s unusual appearance .
The President ’ s National Security team flanked the President .
The witness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looked down upon him .
Everyone ’ s eyes were locked on the President and on the bespeckled witness .
Without any warning whatsoever , the President pulled a .38 special from his jacket , pointed it at the witness ’ head and fired point-blank into the witness ’ forehead blowing brain matter out the back of the skull as the .38 caliber projectile sped across the hearing room and buried itself into the door the President had just come through .
The witness ’ lifeless body fell on the floor .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hearing room at all the gaping , wide-open mouths , and smirked .
He sat the gun down on the witness table , turned around and saluted the Democrats ’ side of the Judiciary Committee .
He then casually walked up to its Chair , leaned forward and told the Chair in a loud voice that he ’ d told the witness not to come to the hearing and not to testify .
He then turned around and walked back out of the hearing room doors with his security detail protecting his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Judiciary Committee , the Speaker of the House and the Senate Minority Leader were simultaneously assassinated minutes before while meeting with the President in the Oval Office .
Both were given lethal amounts of poison in the drinks provided to them by the President after he had prepared the deadly concoctions .
The President ’ s Attorney General gave a press conference within the hour , informing the shocked audience world-wide that DOJ Policy barred prosecution of the President , as well as , his arrest , indictment , and any trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President of the United States of America .
The DOJ Policy against indicting a sitting President of the United States of America surely has some limitations , doesn ’ t it ?
I reviewed it .
I didn ’ t see any there .
In the conclusion to subsection 2c is the following statement : “ It is conceivable that , in a particular set of circumstances , a particular criminal charge will not in fact require so much time and energy of a sitting President so as materially to impede the capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutionally assigned functions .
It would be perilous , however , to make a judgment in advance as to whether a particular criminal prosecution would be a case of this sort .
Thus a categorical rule against indictment or criminal prosecution is most consistent with the constitutional structure , rather than a doctrinal test that would require the court to assess whether a particular criminal proceeding is likely to impose serious burdens upon the President.
” A Sitting President ’ s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution , 24 Op .
O.L.C .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Clearly , killing the Special Counsel , Speaker of the House , and the Minority Leader of the Senate , would require a lot of time and energy of the accused , sitting President “ so as materially to impede the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
” But why on God ’ s green earth would we care under such circumstances ?
Surprisingly , or so it appears , such a set of circumstances , or treason or collusion with a foreign government , or violation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of campaign finance laws , or even stopping foreign aid to an ally unless that ally manufactures dirt on a political opponent were not addressed in the Memo .
Instead , the perception was that we ’ d just turn to the Congress to impeach and convict and remove the bastard .
Well , in our country , today , who is willing to bet a year ’ s paycheck that the Republican enablers in the Senate would join with Democrats in reaching the two-third ’ s majority needed to convict and remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shoot a person on 5th Avenue and not lose a single vote .
In the conclusion to the Memo , which reaffirmed the 1973 DOJ Policy not to prosecute a sitting President , the following was said : In 1973 , the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties , and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers .
No court has addressed this question directly , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached .
Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution .
A Sitting President ’ s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution , 24 Op .
O.L.C .
222 , at 260 ( 2000 ) .
As a final point of information , the following is a quote from Wikipedia ’ s discussion of the justice system in the District of Columbia , the location of the White House and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States appoints the city 's local judges from a group of nominees selected by a judicial nomination commission .
All presidential nominees are then confirmed by the U.S .
Senate .
[ 37 ] The local Attorney General of the District of Columbia only has jurisdiction in civil proceedings and prosecuting minor offenses such as misdemeanors and traffic violations .
[ 38 ] The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is also appointed by the President and is responsible for prosecuting both federal and local felony crimes , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , grand theft , and arson .
[ 39 ] This setup differs from elsewhere in the country where 93 % of local prosecutors are directly elected and the remainder are appointed by local elected officials.
” Having seen that the sitting President was not convicted of treasonous behavior or obstruction of Congress , due to having the Senate and the DOJ in his back pocket , does the current DOJ policy against prosecuting a sitting President while in office still make sense to any reasonable American ?
And as a heads up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminals in the past few days , does anyone believe there was no quid pro quo for the pardons being issued ?
Even the Illinois governor believed he should be able to be compensated for an appointment to the Senate .

The witness had just been sworn in by the Judiciary Committee’s Chair. He was beginning his opening remarks when the door to the hearing room swung open and the President of the United States walked into the hearing room. All noise ceased. No one completed a sentence. No one said another thing as the President walked up the aisle and turned in front of the witness table approaching the witness who appeared frightened by the President’s unusual appearance. The President’s National Security team flanked the President. The witness rose from his seat as the President looked down upon him. Everyone’s eyes were locked on the President and on the bespeckled witness. Without any warning whatsoever, the President pulled a .38 special from his jacket, pointed it at the witness’ head and fired point-blank into the witness’ forehead blowing brain matter out the back of the skull as the .38 caliber projectile sped across the hearing room and buried itself into the door the President had just come through.
The witness’ lifeless body fell on the floor. The President, without emotion, looked around the hearing room at all the gaping, wide-open mouths, and smirked. He sat the gun down on the witness table, turned around and saluted the Democrats’ side of the Judiciary Committee. He then casually walked up to its Chair, leaned forward and told the Chair in a loud voice that he’d told the witness not to come to the hearing and not to testify. He then turned around and walked back out of the hearing room doors with his security detail protecting his departure. Unbeknownst to the members of the Judiciary Committee, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Minority Leader were simultaneously assassinated minutes before while meeting with the President in the Oval Office. Both were given lethal amounts of poison in the drinks provided to them by the President after he had prepared the deadly concoctions.
The President’s Attorney General gave a press conference within the hour, informing the shocked audience world-wide that DOJ Policy barred prosecution of the President, as well as, his arrest, indictment, and any trial from occurring during his tenure as the President of the United States of America.
The DOJ Policy against indicting a sitting President of the United States of America surely has some limitations, doesn’t it? I reviewed it. I didn’t see any there. In the conclusion to subsection 2c is the following statement:
“It is conceivable that, in a particular set of circumstances, a particular criminal charge will not in fact require so much time and energy of a sitting President so as materially to impede the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. It would be perilous, however, to make a judgment in advance as to whether a particular criminal prosecution would be a case of this sort. Thus a categorical rule against indictment or criminal prosecution is most consistent with the constitutional structure, rather than a doctrinal test that would require the court to assess whether a particular criminal proceeding is likely to impose serious burdens upon the President.”
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, at 254 (2000).
Clearly, killing the Special Counsel, Speaker of the House, and the Minority Leader of the Senate, would require a lot of time and energy of the accused, sitting President “so as materially to impede the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.” But why on God’s green earth would we care under such circumstances? Surprisingly, or so it appears, such a set of circumstances, or treason or collusion with a foreign government, or violation of the Emoluments Clause, or violation of campaign finance laws, or even stopping foreign aid to an ally unless that ally manufactures dirt on a political opponent were not addressed in the Memo. Instead, the perception was that we’d just turn to the Congress to impeach and convict and remove the bastard. Well, in our country, today, who is willing to bet a year’s paycheck that the Republican enablers in the Senate would join with Democrats in reaching the two-third’s majority needed to convict and remove the President who believes that he can shoot a person on 5th Avenue and not lose a single vote.
In the conclusion to the Memo, which reaffirmed the 1973 DOJ Policy not to prosecute a sitting President, the following was said:
In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, at 260 (2000).
As a final point of information, the following is a quote from Wikipedia’s discussion of the justice system in the District of Columbia, the location of the White House and the Congress:
“The President of the United States appoints the city's local judges from a group of nominees selected by a judicial nomination commission. All presidential nominees are then confirmed by the U.S. Senate.[37] The local Attorney General of the District of Columbia only has jurisdiction in civil proceedings and prosecuting minor offenses such as misdemeanors and traffic violations.[38] The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is also appointed by the President and is responsible for prosecuting both federal and local felony crimes, such as robbery, murder, aggravated assault, grand theft, and arson.[39] This setup differs from elsewhere in the country where 93% of local prosecutors are directly elected and the remainder are appointed by local elected officials.”
Having seen that the sitting President was not convicted of treasonous behavior or obstruction of Congress, due to having the Senate and the DOJ in his back pocket, does the current DOJ policy against prosecuting a sitting President while in office still make sense to any reasonable American? And as a heads up, with the pardons of several white-collar criminals in the past few days, does anyone believe there was no quid pro quo for the pardons being issued? Even the Illinois governor believed he should be able to be compensated for an appointment to the Senate.


dailykos--2020-02-22--So I've finally made my choice

So I've finally made my choice

On Wednesday we saw how effective a debater Warren unleashed can be .
Oddly , that did not persuade me to finally decide .
I knew how skilled a debater she could be .
What I have seen and admired is that she listens to people , that she learns , that she acknowledges mistakes .
All of that is important .
So are her energy and her intellect ( which is formidable ) .
I greatly admire her tenacity as well .
I do not agree 100 % with any candidate I have ever supported actively , for any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been actively involved in campaigns ranging from borough council in a community of 7,000 to significant roles in Presidential primaries , with perhaps my most notable activity being in the 2006 Senate campaign of Jim Webb .
I am now 73 , with a wife living with a cancer that can be managed but not eliminated , myself having survived several ( mild ) strokes last fall , with a stent in my aorta ( and hence some sympathy for two of the remaining Democratic candidates ) , who still works full time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I really do need the income , but also because I know I can still be effective in helping shape young people for the futures before them .
I have no pretense of being that active in any political campaign , and no illusions of transitioning to public office of any kind , even appointment to local boards .
I teach government , and thus of necessity I pay undue amounts of attention and energy to politics and related .
In my 26 year career I have been through two presidential impeachments knowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resulting in the removal of the man impeached .
I have watched as the norms of our politics and political discourse have been systematically undermined over the past few decades , and watched the somewhat successful attempts by noxious folks to roll back the societal advances made during the 1960s into the 1980s ( with of course some advances even through the last Presidential administration .
I have no intimations of my imminent demise , and yet realize that this might well be the last meaningful Presidential election I will see .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that first and foremost is deeply moral .
We saw that for 8 years under Obama , even if we disagreed with him on some policies and actions .
I do not at this point self-identify as a Christian .
And yet my almost two decades split between the Episcopal and Orthodox churches have shaped a good deal of my thinking , as have my exploration of other religious traditions including the Judaism of my parents .
The idea of not denying justice to sojourners in our land because we ourselves were strangers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judaism , and in my mind is of a piece with the commands of Matthew 25 about what we do to these the least of our brethren .
While not myself a lawyer , I grew up in a family full of them ( including a mother who was an Assistant AG of NY ) , and understand how the law can be used positively to make society more just and moral , as well as being used and even distorted for the benefit of the few and the already privileged .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of wealth who understood their responsibility to those without as well as those who think their own riches — however obtained — somehow privilege them to be beyond control , responsibility to anything beyond their own narrow self-interests .
Why Warren ?
In part because she has experienced an ordinary life growing up and getting educated before moving into the elite circles of law and politics — and still understands and remembers the difference .
In part because she has sought to use law and politics to make a difference for ordinary people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of offering affirmation to the good ideas and actions of other .
In part because she is willing to speak forcefully against things that are clearly wrong , as she demonstrated by reading the entire Mueller report and then calling for the impeachment of Donald J. Trump .
As a teacher I also look at those she has taught and inspired , and here the work of Rep. Katie Porter shines out , like Warren not only brilliant but humane and deeply moral.l Perhaps as I age those become even more important to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As I look back over the 7 plus decades of my life and think about those people who have had the greatest influence on me , those two expressions are consistent themes I see among all of them .
Those to whom I would apply those terms include among others a teacher in high school , several professors at and a president of Haverford College , the now deceased former abbot of a Greek monastery who was for a decade my spiritual father , several fellow educators I deeply admire , some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot , and most of all the woman who has been my closest friend and spouse for a total of more than 4.5 decades .
There are public political figures I would place in the same category , some of whom I have met , some I know only through watching them .
Some who immediately come to mind include James Farmer , Elijah Cummings , John Lewis , Margaret Chase Smith , Abraham Joshua Heschel … .
My support of Elizabeth Warren is simple .
She is brilliant to be sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of far greater importance to me is that she is humane and deeply morale .
In a few hours I will go to the County offices and vote for her , even without knowing the results of today ’ s Nevada Caucuses .
Then I will give her what money I can .
Why ?
My answer is simple .
It is the humane and moral thing for me to do .

It is late for me to “decide.” It is even later than usual for me to to vote. I can and usually vote absentee in person on the first day possible — I live in Virginia but work in Maryland so I have no trouble qualifying for the privilege to to do so legally. Normally I do it on the first day possible, which this year was January 16. Today I will go down to the County office building where I worked until I became a teacher, go in to the registrar’s office, and cast my ballot.
Why did it take me this long? Hard to say. In a sense I was pretty sure for whom I was likely to vote as far back as November. The choice started to become easier as time progressed. I knew I would never vote for Gabbard or Delaney from the start. I have previously expressed my problems with voting for anyone older than me, which had eliminated both Biden and Sanders, and more recently also excluded Bloomberg, in all three cases even before I got to particular issues that bothered me. I had problems with Booker on education, did not think Yang was qualified. As the field narrowed with the withdrawals of Harris and Castro my choice became even more obvious.
And yet I wondered. I looked at polling data and wondered if by March 3 my choice would have any realistic chance of getting the nomination. I looked at the results of of Iowa and New Hampshire. I also looked at the coverage being given each of the remaining candidates.
I knew that I would in the general vote for the Democrat regardless of whom the nominee was, even if it were someone I would not support in the primary. Even the VP choice would not be disqualifying, because the reelection of the incumbent would represent a catastrophe not only for our Republic but for the future of the world on so many levels.
After the Nevada debate, with its fireworks (which I appreciated!) and even with the general lack of attacks on so-called Republican who currently holds the office, I decided in this primary I would vote for the person I thought would by far make the best president, and not because I believe s/he would necessarily gain the most delegates. I think it quite possible that no one will gain the majority of first ballot votes, that the Superdelegates will therefore play a role (as I think they should), I am hoping my choice will still be in the mix, although ultimately that does not matter in my decision.
I am voting for Elizabeth Warren, and later today I will give her some more money.
On Wednesday we saw how effective a debater Warren unleashed can be. Oddly, that did not persuade me to finally decide. I knew how skilled a debater she could be. What I have seen and admired is that she listens to people, that she learns, that she acknowledges mistakes. All of that is important. So are her energy and her intellect (which is formidable). I greatly admire her tenacity as well.
I do not agree 100% with any candidate I have ever supported actively, for any office. Over the decades I have been actively involved in campaigns ranging from borough council in a community of 7,000 to significant roles in Presidential primaries, with perhaps my most notable activity being in the 2006 Senate campaign of Jim Webb.
I am now 73, with a wife living with a cancer that can be managed but not eliminated, myself having survived several (mild) strokes last fall, with a stent in my aorta (and hence some sympathy for two of the remaining Democratic candidates), who still works full time as a teacher, not merely because I really do need the income, but also because I know I can still be effective in helping shape young people for the futures before them. I have no pretense of being that active in any political campaign, and no illusions of transitioning to public office of any kind, even appointment to local boards.
I teach government, and thus of necessity I pay undue amounts of attention and energy to politics and related. In my 26 year career I have been through two presidential impeachments knowing that neither had any real chance in resulting in the removal of the man impeached. I have watched as the norms of our politics and political discourse have been systematically undermined over the past few decades, and watched the somewhat successful attempts by noxious folks to roll back the societal advances made during the 1960s into the 1980s (with of course some advances even through the last Presidential administration.
I have no intimations of my imminent demise, and yet realize that this might well be the last meaningful Presidential election I will see.
This country desperately needs leadership at the top that first and foremost is deeply moral. We saw that for 8 years under Obama, even if we disagreed with him on some policies and actions.
I do not at this point self-identify as a Christian. And yet my almost two decades split between the Episcopal and Orthodox churches have shaped a good deal of my thinking, as have my exploration of other religious traditions including the Judaism of my parents. The idea of not denying justice to sojourners in our land because we ourselves were strangers in Egypt is a key commitment of Judaism, and in my mind is of a piece with the commands of Matthew 25 about what we do to these the least of our brethren. While not myself a lawyer, I grew up in a family full of them (including a mother who was an Assistant AG of NY), and understand how the law can be used positively to make society more just and moral, as well as being used and even distorted for the benefit of the few and the already privileged.
I have lived long enough to see those of wealth who understood their responsibility to those without as well as those who think their own riches — however obtained — somehow privilege them to be beyond control, responsibility to anything beyond their own narrow self-interests.
Why Warren? In part because she has experienced an ordinary life growing up and getting educated before moving into the elite circles of law and politics — and still understands and remembers the difference. In part because she has sought to use law and politics to make a difference for ordinary people. In part because she finds ways of offering affirmation to the good ideas and actions of other. In part because she is willing to speak forcefully against things that are clearly wrong, as she demonstrated by reading the entire Mueller report and then calling for the impeachment of Donald J. Trump. As a teacher I also look at those she has taught and inspired, and here the work of Rep. Katie Porter shines out, like Warren not only brilliant but humane and deeply moral.
Humane and deeply moral
Perhaps as I age those become even more important to me as I make political decisions.
As I look back over the 7 plus decades of my life and think about those people who have had the greatest influence on me, those two expressions are consistent themes I see among all of them. Those to whom I would apply those terms include among others a teacher in high school, several professors at and a president of Haverford College, the now deceased former abbot of a Greek monastery who was for a decade my spiritual father, several fellow educators I deeply admire, some of my students from whom I have learned a lot, and most of all the woman who has been my closest friend and spouse for a total of more than 4.5 decades. There are public political figures I would place in the same category, some of whom I have met, some I know only through watching them. Some who immediately come to mind include James Farmer, Elijah Cummings, John Lewis, Margaret Chase Smith, Abraham Joshua Heschel ….
My support of Elizabeth Warren is simple. She is brilliant to be sure. She is certainly accomplished. But of far greater importance to me is that she is humane and deeply morale.
In a few hours I will go to the County offices and vote for her, even without knowing the results of today’s Nevada Caucuses. Then I will give her what money I can.
Why? My answer is simple.
It is the humane and moral thing for me to do.
Peace.


dailykos--2020-02-22--Water Emergency in Paden City, WV

Water Emergency in Paden City, WV

How does a State of Emergency get declared for an entire town , but no one know about it until over two weeks later ?
Ask the people of Paden City , a small town straddling the line of Tyler and Wetzel counties in West Virginia .
On February 4 , 2020 Governor Jim Justice finally took executive action over a decades old water crisis plaguing the citizens of this town .
Paden City has dangerously high levels of the dry-cleaning chemical Tetrachloroethylene or PCE in their water supply and city officials have known about the abnormally high readings since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels have been recorded for more than two decades , it wasn ’ t until March 2019 when the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection sent a letter to them stating that levels had reached 5.5 .
This is the level declared by the Environmental Protection Agency as dangerous to humans .
Water quality readings have been recorded as high as 49.6 ( 2013 ) but the WVDEP did not recognize the issue until last March .
According to West Virginia Public Broadcasting , late last month , city officials sent notice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three times the federal limit .
The notice also indicated their water was “ safe to drink in the short term but could lead to long term health problems including an increased risk of cancer.
” ( WVPB ) The city ’ s water supply comes from four wells that all connect to the same aquifer .
Although the town broke ground on a new water filtration system this week with the help of Homeland Security and the Office of Emergency Management , Mayor Clyde Hockstrasser says the city will need to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two decades of water pollution with a carcinogenic contaminant , residents worry how using the water for so long unaware of the problem will impact their health .
Paden City resident Tonya Schuler conducted a series of online and in-person surveys about health problems among town residents .
The results are staggering .
Tonya told WVPB , “ We found clusters of cancer , ALS ( Lou Gehrig ’ s Disease ) , multiple sclerosis , fibromyalgia , etc.
” Why the secrecy ?
Why did it take so long for the WVDEP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they not conducting weekly water quality tests ?
Why has the Bureau of Public Health not visited the city to track illnesses among citizens ?
Why has Governor Justice not utilized the State of Emergency to provide safe , clean drinking water to the citizens of Paden City ?
There are so many questions that need answered .
There are so many other towns just like Paden City in West Virginia that deal with a lack of safe , clean drinking water .
This is unacceptable and it is time for people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We need to unite and help the people of Paden City and make sure our fellow Americans have access to the basic necessity of potable water .
Please , go to bit.ly/… to sign our petition and pressure Governor Justice to act on his State of Emergency declaration in Paden City .
These people need clean water provided to them !

How does a State of Emergency get declared for an entire town, but no one know about it until over two weeks later? Ask the people of Paden City, a small town straddling the line of Tyler and Wetzel counties in West Virginia.
On February 4, 2020 Governor Jim Justice finally took executive action over a decades old water crisis plaguing the citizens of this town. Paden City has dangerously high levels of the dry-cleaning chemical Tetrachloroethylene or PCE in their water supply and city officials have known about the abnormally high readings since at least 1999.
Even though these levels have been recorded for more than two decades, it wasn’t until March 2019 when the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection sent a letter to them stating that levels had reached 5.5. This is the level declared by the Environmental Protection Agency as dangerous to humans. Water quality readings have been recorded as high as 49.6 (2013) but the WVDEP did not recognize the issue until last March.
According to West Virginia Public Broadcasting, late last month, city officials sent notice to residents stating that PCE levels were nearly three times the federal limit. The notice also indicated their water was “safe to drink in the short term but could lead to long term health problems including an increased risk of cancer.” (WVPB)
The city’s water supply comes from four wells that all connect to the same aquifer. Although the town broke ground on a new water filtration system this week with the help of Homeland Security and the Office of Emergency Management, Mayor Clyde Hockstrasser says the city will need to find a new water supply.
With over two decades of water pollution with a carcinogenic contaminant, residents worry how using the water for so long unaware of the problem will impact their health. Paden City resident Tonya Schuler conducted a series of online and in-person surveys about health problems among town residents. The results are staggering. Tonya told WVPB, “We found clusters of cancer, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, etc.”
Why the secrecy? Why did it take so long for the WVDEP to acknowledge the crisis? Why are they not conducting weekly water quality tests? Why has the Bureau of Public Health not visited the city to track illnesses among citizens? Why has Governor Justice not utilized the State of Emergency to provide safe, clean drinking water to the citizens of Paden City?
There are so many questions that need answered. There are so many other towns just like Paden City in West Virginia that deal with a lack of safe, clean drinking water. This is unacceptable and it is time for people to demand better from our state government. We need to unite and help the people of Paden City and make sure our fellow Americans have access to the basic necessity of potable water.
Please, go to bit.ly/… to sign our petition and pressure Governor Justice to act on his State of Emergency declaration in Paden City. These people need clean water provided to them!


dailykos--2020-02-22--Blue America Endorses Paula Jean for US Senate

Team Paula Jean is honored to have received the endorsement of Blue America .
Their support means the world to @ @ @ @ @ be more excited to have them on our side for this fight .
A huge @ @ @ @ @ for his support .
We are so thankful to have his support alongside the endorsement @ @ @ @ @ truly is an honor and absolute pleasure to join such an amazing group of true @ @ @ @ @ continues to build and grow to take on the political establishment in West Virginia and @ @ @ @ @ state that so desperately needs it .

Team Paula Jean is honored to have received the endorsement of Blue America. Their support means the world to us and we could not be more excited to have them on our side for this fight. A huge thank you to Howie Klein for his support. We are so thankful to have his support alongside the endorsement from Blue America. This truly is an honor and absolute pleasure to join such an amazing group of true progressives. Team Paula Jean continues to build and grow to take on the political establishment in West Virginia and bring real change to a state that so desperately needs it.


dailykos--2020-02-22--The Political Economy of Covid-19

The Political Economy of Covid-19

From Bad Bets and the Corona Virus Epidemic So what do I mean by “ bad bet ” ?
Totally bastardizing Taleb from memory , a “ bad bet ” — to me — is a bet that you can not afford to lose .
( Walk away from the table if a loss means you lose your house , if you have only one house . )
Now , in retrospect , I ’ m not sure that # COVID-19 is all that “ Black Swan ” -ish — not at all “ highly improbable.
” But there certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bets ” made .
I will point to three : By the individual , by the state , and by globalizing , neoliberal elites .
Second , a bad bet by the state .
From the Washington Post , “ Why Wuhan Is at the Center of the Viral Outbreak “ : Wuhan , which branded itself as a Chinese version of Phoenix , is now the epicenter of a SARS-like virus that has sickened hundreds .
It ’ s worth asking why this disease came out of an inland technology hub that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — workforce , rather than the mega-cities of Beijing or Shanghai… .
Wuhan has been carefully fostering a reputation as an alternative to Shenzhen .
In its latest five-year plan , the city set a target of keeping 1 million college graduates by relaxing its hukou system , the equivalent of a green card that entitles holders to social services such as public-school education .
The high volume of labor migration isn ’ t to blame , however .
A city may well expand in size , but basic public services must keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Wuhan ’ s fiscal spending .
While money has poured into hot areas such as technology research , expenditure on public health has been stagnant .
As recently as last June , Wuhan residents complained about poor hygiene at the seafood market , but the municipality didn ’ t respond .
While Beijing and Shanghai host lots of migrants , too , both cities spend more on this sector .
Populations there have flattened amid restrictions on labor inflows .
Granted , money is tight for local governments as the economy slows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 300 billion tax cut .
As a result , bureaucrats have to make a tough decision between grants to chip designers and public health .
The former serves President Xi Jinping ’ s Made in China 2025 drive , while the latter minimizes black swan scenarios .
This is a whole post , and probably a whole book .
Simplifying absurdly , our neoliberal elites destroyed manufacturing in this country and moved it to China .
….Save for the profits they accrued , most of their working assumptions for this policy proved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not become a liberal democracy ; as it turns out , liberal democracy does not automagically happen because there are markets , or capitalism .
Nor did China become a happy member of “ the rules-based international order.
” Rather — and who could blame them — they decided to write their own rules .
Finally , a highly optimized supply chain system so complex as to be unmanageable developed to ship consumer goods from China to the world , and to ship raw materials from the world into China .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks , the supply chain is extremely fragile , and its failure may mean a loss of truly essential commodities to the United States , like pharmaceuticals ( although the wealthy will be able to get what they need , so no problem there ) .
And what bad bet did our globalizing , neoliberal elites make ?
The same as the bureaucrats running Wuhan : That public health doesn ’ t matter .
( An absurdly bad bet , after H1N1 , SARS , and swine fever in China , an animal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Clearly , a less fragile , more robust system of global public health is needed ; one that can take precautionary measures , instead of just reacting to outbreaks as they occur .
How to get to that point , however , is little beyond me .
We might start from the premise that human life is the most important thing .
That may be difficult for our elites to accept .
But they might be making a bad bet if they don ’ t .

From Bad Bets and the Corona Virus Epidemic
So what do I mean by “bad bet”? Totally bastardizing Taleb from memory, a “bad bet” — to me — is a bet that you cannot afford to lose. (Walk away from the table if a loss means you lose your house, if you have only one house.) Now, in retrospect, I’m not sure that #COVID-19 is all that “Black Swan”-ish — not at all “highly improbable.” But there certainly have been a number of “bad bets” made. I will point to three: By the individual, by the state, and by globalizing, neoliberal elites.
Bad bet by an individual:
What's calculus on self-action re: Coronavirus?
Self quarantine (pull kids from school, cease work, stay home)
• Should: Save family
• Shouldn't: Get made fun of if/when things work out fine
Carry On
• Should: Status Quo
• Shouldn't: Potential death of self/loved ones
Second, a bad bet by the state. From the Washington Post, “Why Wuhan Is at the Center of the Viral Outbreak“:
Wuhan, which branded itself as a Chinese version of Phoenix, is now the epicenter of a SARS-like virus that has sickened hundreds. It’s worth asking why this disease came out of an inland technology hub that boasts a young — and presumably healthier — workforce, rather than the mega-cities of Beijing or Shanghai…. Wuhan has been carefully fostering a reputation as an alternative to Shenzhen. In its latest five-year plan, the city set a target of keeping 1 million college graduates by relaxing its hukou system, the equivalent of a green card that entitles holders to social services such as public-school education. The high volume of labor migration isn’t to blame, however. A city may well expand in size, but basic public services must keep up, too. Take a look at Wuhan’s fiscal spending. While money has poured into hot areas such as technology research, expenditure on public health has been stagnant. As recently as last June, Wuhan residents complained about poor hygiene at the seafood market, but the municipality didn’t respond. While Beijing and Shanghai host lots of migrants, too, both cities spend more on this sector. Populations there have flattened amid restrictions on labor inflows. Granted, money is tight for local governments as the economy slows, especially after last year’s $300 billion tax cut. As a result, bureaucrats have to make a tough decision between grants to chip designers and public health. The former serves President Xi Jinping’s Made in China 2025 drive, while the latter minimizes black swan scenarios.
Finally, our globalizing, neoliberal elites.


dailykos--2020-02-23--Another conversion story...a slow evolution in my case

I came from a Republican family .
My mother has , since her childhood , unthinkingly regarded the Republican party as if it were her religion ( it ’ s no surprise that she now thinks Trump is wonderful ) .
Her loyalty to the R ’ s seems to stem , from what I can figure out , from her veneration of her father , who was a rock-ribbed Republican .
My late father , who had come from a Democratic but not very political family , was , from the time he married my mother , a low-tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments were the only good kind of government .
Ironically , both of my parents belonged approvingly to a teachers ’ union .
During my youth , the Republican Party was part of my identity , even though I had a shallow understanding of political issues at the time and much of that understanding was parroting of things my parents said .
In middle school , I was Mr. Republican .
My mother loved to brag about how conservative I was .
I became a political junkie during the 1976 election , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loved to watch the election coverage on TV every two years .
I even created my own map of which parts of the country leaned toward one major party or the other when I was a middle-schooler .
The small town I grew up in happened to be the home of a congressman who was routinely described as an “ archconservative.
” His personal lodge for political parties was next to my parents ’ property and I encountered him various times while I was growing up , usually in the presence of one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time , it was like meeting a big celebrity , although he had an affable , down-to-earth demeanor .
His sudden death at a relatively young age from a mysterious ailment was a major shock and quite a downer .
However , I still idolized him enough to write a term paper about his life in my high school American History class .
Then I grew up and got out from under my parents ’ roof .
My political conversion was a slow process that lasted from age 19 into my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took an intense dislike to the Religious Right because they didn ’ t accept evolution .
I ’ d always been deeply interested in biology , and the discovery that anyone at that point in history could still deny that evolution existed was a serious blow to my view of human nature .
My parents were mainline Protestants and had no problem at all with evolution , so I hadn ’ t been exposed to Creationism until that point .
My mother even looked down on fundamentalists as being “ radical ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here and now.
” I also became pro-choice—not because I was concerned about women ’ s rights at that time in my life , but because I was worried about world overpopulation ( I still am deeply concerned about that , by the way ) .
Then , after a conversation with a gay friend , I became pro-gay rights and pro-gay marriage .
This was in 1986 , long before gay marriage was a mainstream issue .
I began reading newspapers a lot during that period and that certainly broadened my views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years in college with a fellow who was a Creationist as well as a right-wing political hack .
When I challenged him about evolution , he always had some talking point about how there was a logical fallacy in what evolutionists said , the oddest of which was that , in his way of thinking , evolution had to occur exactly as Darwin had described it or it wasn ’ t evolution—never mind the modifications of our understanding of evolution that had occurred in the previous century .
He was also homophobic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Surprisingly , he ended up marrying a woman from Columbia . )
Reacting against his views and his general demeanor , I began thinking of myself as a “ moderate Republican.
” Nevertheless , from 1984 , when I was first eligible to vote , through 1990 , I voted almost entirely for Republicans , although I don ’ t think I ever voted a totally straight ticket .
Change was in the air , however .
I began to find that conservative positions were becoming harder and harder to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my mind .
I still considered myself a fiscal conservative , but to me that meant balanced budgets , not lowering taxes irresponsibly , and in my mind I couldn ’ t justify or defend the budget deficits of the Reagan era .
Around the same time , I began reading more environmental literature and became aware of just how anti-environmental the core of the Republican Party was .
At age 26 , I changed my voter registration to Independent .
I watched the party conventions in 1992 and was impressed enough by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote for Bush all year , I cast my first Democratic presidential ballot for Clinton .
From 1992 through 1998 , I was splitting my ticket about evenly between the two major parties .
Although I ’ d never had any significant animosity toward other ethnic groups and I ’ d always tried to be polite to everyone ( although I confess to dropping an ethnic slur on rare occasion when I was young ) , during that period of my life I learned more about discrimination and about a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minorities during the previous hundred years .
My research involved working with minorities , and as a result I had to dig into their perspectives far more deeply than I ’ d ever had to before .
Al Gore ’ s environmental policies appealed to me , so by 2000 , I was ready to jump aboard the Democratic Party .
I ’ ve been a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party ever since .
Democratic positions on practically every issue , including fiscal ones and national defense , have come to seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I finally got around to changing my party registration from Independent to Democratic about a year ago , but that was a long overdue formality , since I ’ d been a de facto Democrat for twenty years and had been voting in Democratic primaries the whole time because the state I live in allows Independents to vote in party primaries .
So yes , it ’ s possible for a person to change , and yes , we should welcome converts with open arms .
There would be no more effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than to impose the purity test of expecting our supporters and our candidates always to have been Democrats .
Moreover , it ’ s equally self-defeating to suspect anyone who had once been a Republican of secretly harboring anti-Democratic views .

I came from a Republican family. My mother has, since her childhood, unthinkingly regarded the Republican party as if it were her religion (it’s no surprise that she now thinks Trump is wonderful). Her loyalty to the R’s seems to stem, from what I can figure out, from her veneration of her father, who was a rock-ribbed Republican. My late father, who had come from a Democratic but not very political family, was, from the time he married my mother, a low-tax, gun-rights Republican who thought that local governments were the only good kind of government. Ironically, both of my parents belonged approvingly to a teachers’ union.
During my youth, the Republican Party was part of my identity, even though I had a shallow understanding of political issues at the time and much of that understanding was parroting of things my parents said. In middle school, I was Mr. Republican. My mother loved to brag about how conservative I was. I became a political junkie during the 1976 election, when I was ten years old, and loved to watch the election coverage on TV every two years. I even created my own map of which parts of the country leaned toward one major party or the other when I was a middle-schooler.
The small town I grew up in happened to be the home of a congressman who was routinely described as an “archconservative.” His personal lodge for political parties was next to my parents’ property and I encountered him various times while I was growing up, usually in the presence of one of my parents. To me, at the time, it was like meeting a big celebrity, although he had an affable, down-to-earth demeanor. His sudden death at a relatively young age from a mysterious ailment was a major shock and quite a downer. However, I still idolized him enough to write a term paper about his life in my high school American History class.
Then I grew up and got out from under my parents’ roof.
My political conversion was a slow process that lasted from age 19 into my early 30’s. First I took an intense dislike to the Religious Right because they didn’t accept evolution. I’d always been deeply interested in biology, and the discovery that anyone at that point in history could still deny that evolution existed was a serious blow to my view of human nature. My parents were mainline Protestants and had no problem at all with evolution, so I hadn’t been exposed to Creationism until that point. My mother even looked down on fundamentalists as being “radical” and belonging to “the Church of the here and now.” I also became pro-choice—not because I was concerned about women’s rights at that time in my life, but because I was worried about world overpopulation (I still am deeply concerned about that, by the way). Then, after a conversation with a gay friend, I became pro-gay rights and pro-gay marriage. This was in 1986, long before gay marriage was a mainstream issue. I began reading newspapers a lot during that period and that certainly broadened my views.
Meanwhile, I roomed for two years in college with a fellow who was a Creationist as well as a right-wing political hack. When I challenged him about evolution, he always had some talking point about how there was a logical fallacy in what evolutionists said, the oddest of which was that, in his way of thinking, evolution had to occur exactly as Darwin had described it or it wasn’t evolution—never mind the modifications of our understanding of evolution that had occurred in the previous century. He was also homophobic and racist against both African Americans and Latinos. (Surprisingly, he ended up marrying a woman from Columbia.) Reacting against his views and his general demeanor, I began thinking of myself as a “moderate Republican.” Nevertheless, from 1984, when I was first eligible to vote, through 1990, I voted almost entirely for Republicans, although I don’t think I ever voted a totally straight ticket.
Change was in the air, however. I began to find that conservative positions were becoming harder and harder to defend in the debates that went on within my mind. I still considered myself a fiscal conservative, but to me that meant balanced budgets, not lowering taxes irresponsibly, and in my mind I couldn’t justify or defend the budget deficits of the Reagan era. Around the same time, I began reading more environmental literature and became aware of just how anti-environmental the core of the Republican Party was. At age 26, I changed my voter registration to Independent. I watched the party conventions in 1992 and was impressed enough by the Democratic convention that, after expecting to vote for Bush all year, I cast my first Democratic presidential ballot for Clinton.
From 1992 through 1998, I was splitting my ticket about evenly between the two major parties. Although I’d never had any significant animosity toward other ethnic groups and I’d always tried to be polite to everyone (although I confess to dropping an ethnic slur on rare occasion when I was young), during that period of my life I learned more about discrimination and about a lot of the awful things that had happened to minorities during the previous hundred years. My research involved working with minorities, and as a result I had to dig into their perspectives far more deeply than I’d ever had to before.
Al Gore’s environmental policies appealed to me, so by 2000, I was ready to jump aboard the Democratic Party. I’ve been a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party ever since. Democratic positions on practically every issue, including fiscal ones and national defense, have come to seem more sensible to me than Republican positions. I finally got around to changing my party registration from Independent to Democratic about a year ago, but that was a long overdue formality, since I’d been a de facto Democrat for twenty years and had been voting in Democratic primaries the whole time because the state I live in allows Independents to vote in party primaries.
So yes, it’s possible for a person to change, and yes, we should welcome converts with open arms. There would be no more effective way to shoot ourselves in the foot than to impose the purity test of expecting our supporters and our candidates always to have been Democrats. Moreover, it’s equally self-defeating to suspect anyone who had once been a Republican of secretly harboring anti-Democratic views.


dailykos--2020-02-23--Make America Great, Finally

Make America Great, Finally

I listened to Bernie ’ s speech at his San Antonio Rally today .
I realized that the gist of Bernie ’ s campaign fits on a hat just as well as Donald Trump ’ s “ Make America Great Again ” slogan .
But , of course , Trump is ever the liar , just like his most representative slogan .
Trump , and the corrupt interests he represents , believe that a return to American greatness means erasing any measures that have taken us forward from a past shaped by the horrors and dark influences that have forever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the real American greatness of our most idealistic national aspirations .
As a nation , we ’ ve always revered life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a nation of people created equal while evils like racism and white supremacy , predatory , unchecked capitalism , human exploitation and neglect , have always infected our national character stalled us from our greatest , fullest potential .
Bernie ’ s speech , his entire campaign , stands up , toe to toe , face to face , with all of those defects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founding , America has taken many steps towards greater social and economic justice , but , lately , too many steps back .
In the future dreamed of by Trump , the GOP and the Trumpists , making America great entails walking back , as far as possible , as many of those steps toward progress as possible , while blocking all future progress .
By contrast , Bernie Sanders totally wants to take all the needed steps forward , required to Make America Great , Finally .
P.S .
Until today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s campaign .
I no longer see a path forward for my favorite candidate .

I listened to Bernie’s speech at his San Antonio Rally today. I realized that the gist of Bernie’s campaign fits on a hat just as well as Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan.
But, of course, Trump is ever the liar, just like his most representative slogan. Trump, and the corrupt interests he represents, believe that a return to American greatness means erasing any measures that have taken us forward from a past shaped by the horrors and dark influences that have forever detracted from, and outright blocked, the real American greatness of our most idealistic national aspirations. As a nation, we’ve always revered life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a nation of people created equal while evils like racism and white supremacy, predatory, unchecked capitalism, human exploitation and neglect, have always infected our national character stalled us from our greatest, fullest potential.
Bernie’s speech, his entire campaign, stands up, toe to toe, face to face, with all of those defects in the American way. Since our founding, America has taken many steps towards greater social and economic justice, but, lately, too many steps back. In the future dreamed of by Trump, the GOP and the Trumpists, making America great entails walking back, as far as possible, as many of those steps toward progress as possible, while blocking all future progress. By contrast, Bernie Sanders totally wants to take all the needed steps forward, required to Make America Great, Finally.
Blue hat; red letters, Bernie logo on back of hat.
P.S. Until today, I’ve supported Elizabeth Warren’s campaign. I no longer see a path forward for my favorite candidate.
Go Bernie!


dailykos--2020-02-23--A Comment about Bernie Sanders.

A Comment about Bernie Sanders.

Today I received the following note from my friend Terry a one-time Democratic elected official .
Neither he nor I have Sanders as our first choice for the nomination but his analysis , I believe , is spot on .
So on all the Sunday shows today the various guests claim that anybody but Sanders would do much better against Trump .
So the Party must unite to stop him .
My view is : that is just not true ; not true at all .
Rahm Emanuel , the Clinton and Obama political guru , and former Chicago Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy never tried by a winning Democrat since 1992 : ignoring the centrist path to the White House in favor of populist liberalism .
And that is indeed risky .
But if that is true , why is it not showing up in the polls ?
?
There are universally no polls that substantiate that .
In fact , a look at Real Clear Politics on 2/23/20 shows that Sanders beats Trump by an average of 3 % -4 % nationwide and in the battleground state of Michigan by 7 % .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same polls , in some cases much worse .
Some even tie or lose to Trump .
This holds true in Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania .
Something is going on that has not happened before .
The old winning strategy of Dems is just not working .
Otherwise , Sanders would be loosing to Trump big time in the polls .
And the other Democrats would be winning big time .
And it ’ s not that the public doesn ’ t know Sanders is a “ democratic socialist ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Attacking Sanders as too extreme , and a socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union doesn ’ t seem to have any impact in the polls .
He still beats Trump by higher margins now than any other candidate , including Biden .
That is frankly amazing .
Again , all the experts appear to be wrong !
All I can say at this point is that a tectonic shift appears to be taking place , not just in the Democratic Party but in the rust belt states of Penn .
Mich. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well or better against Trump than Biden and company in those key states and much better than them nationwide ?
My educated guess is that a very diverse part of America actually “ like him ” .
He has the undefinable “ it ” .
It ’ s an old saw in politics : all things being equal , THE MOST LIKABLE CANDIDATE WINS ” .
For example FDR , HST , JFK , RR , WJC , GWB , BHO , and Trump .
Hillary , while competent , was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important than ideology , looks , wealth , brilliance , etc .
And Sanders is definitely becoming more likable .
Since his heart attack , he has mellowed a lot .
He is much warmer since he became a real winner , no longer the underdog but the top dog .
So watch what happens over the next two weeks : will Sanders become LOVABLE to the Never Trumpers in the Democratic Party ?
He will if he keeps winning the primaries and also the national and regional polls against Trump .
Nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning in politics ( polls included ) .

Today I received the following note from my friend Terry a one-time Democratic elected official. Neither he nor I have Sanders as our first choice for the nomination but his analysis, I believe, is spot on.
So on all the Sunday shows today the various guests claim that anybody but Sanders would do much better against Trump. So the Party must unite to stop him.
My view is: that is just not true; not true at all.
Rahm Emanuel, the Clinton and Obama political guru, and former Chicago Mayor said today that Sanders is following a strategy never tried by a winning Democrat since 1992: ignoring the centrist path to the White House in favor of populist liberalism. And that is indeed risky. But if that is true, why is it not showing up in the polls??
There are universally no polls that substantiate that. In fact, a look at Real Clear Politics on 2/23/20 shows that Sanders beats Trump by an average of 3%-4% nationwide and in the battleground state of Michigan by 7%. All of the other candidates do worse in the same polls, in some cases much worse. Some even tie or lose to Trump. This holds true in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
Something is going on that has not happened before. The old winning strategy of Dems is just not working. Otherwise, Sanders would be loosing to Trump big time in the polls. And the other Democrats would be winning big time. And it’s not that the public doesn’t know Sanders is a “democratic socialist”. His name ID is 95%.
Attacking Sanders as too extreme, and a socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union doesn’t seem to have any impact in the polls. He still beats Trump by higher margins now than any other candidate, including Biden. That is frankly amazing. Again, all the experts appear to be wrong!
All I can say at this point is that a tectonic shift appears to be taking place, not just in the Democratic Party but in the rust belt states of Penn. Mich. and Wisconsin. Why is Sanders doing as well or better against Trump than Biden and company in those key states and much better than them nationwide?
My educated guess is that a very diverse part of America actually “like him”. He has the undefinable “it”.
It’s an old saw in politics: all things being equal, THE MOST LIKABLE CANDIDATE WINS”.
For example FDR, HST, JFK, RR, WJC, GWB, BHO, and Trump. Hillary, while competent, was not as likable.
That quality is more important than ideology, looks, wealth, brilliance, etc. And Sanders is definitely becoming more likable. Since his heart attack, he has mellowed a lot. He is much warmer since he became a real winner, no longer the underdog but the top dog.
So watch what happens over the next two weeks: will Sanders become LOVABLE to the Never Trumpers in the Democratic Party? He will if he keeps winning the primaries and also the national and regional polls against Trump. Nothing succeeds like success and that’s winning in politics (polls included).


dailykos--2020-02-23--Sanders Is Running One Of The Best Political Campaigns I Have Ever Seen

As someone who has worked on two national campaigns and helped a local democrat flip a California seat in 2016 that was held by a Republican for 26 years , I can tell you Bernie is running one of the best campaigns I have ever seen a candidate run in the modern political era He has taken the best of the Obama organizing strategies and improved upon it .
If you watched his post win victory rally Saturday from Texas ( that was brilliant , use the Latino support in NV messaging in a state that will require that minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders gave a textbook speech on how to sear one ’ s policies in to the mind of the electorate .
I was impressed with the messaging discipline .
He is building an expansive coalition of first time and minority voters that haven ’ t been cultivated as effectively before .
An example is his use of Hispanic community organizers in Western states .
The best argument for electability is to win .
If you can ’ t win the primaries there is no substance to back the argument that you can win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s logic .
Obama faced similar skepticism at this point in his first primary run .
Conventional wisdom at the time no one could beat Hillary for the nomination , a black man can ’ t win .
People forget Obama ran on a similar progressive policy platform as Bernie .
I went to work on his campaign as an organization lead in California .
They called Obama a socialist too .
I have seen this script before .
It is true that a substantial number of voters don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European Democratic Socialism , similar to what we have in America by the way .
The Sanders campaign is aware of this .
I am not in any way associated his campaign , but I am told by people who have access that there is a strategy being kicked around to help educate the public on this and compare his fight as similar to that of FDR to get Social Security and Medicare .
Television ads that include this information for the general election would do great service to the public ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and video examples depicting the history of Republicans making similar claims with their apocalyptic warnings about Socialism .
He surely understands that making this distinction is important .
We are going to have conversations that have been long overdue .

As someone who has worked on two national campaigns and helped a local democrat flip a California seat in 2016 that was held by a Republican for 26 years, I can tell you Bernie is running one of the best campaigns I have ever seen a candidate run in the modern political era He has taken the best of the Obama organizing strategies and improved upon it. If you watched his post win victory rally Saturday from Texas (that was brilliant, use the Latino support in NV messaging in a state that will require that minority’s support to win), Sanders gave a textbook speech on how to sear one’s policies in to the mind of the electorate. I was impressed with the messaging discipline. He is building an expansive coalition of first time and minority voters that haven’t been cultivated as effectively before. An example is his use of Hispanic community organizers in Western states.
The best argument for electability is to win. If you can’t win the primaries there is no substance to back the argument that you can win the general. That is a fool’s logic. Obama faced similar skepticism at this point in his first primary run. Conventional wisdom at the time no one could beat Hillary for the nomination, a black man can’t win. People forget Obama ran on a similar progressive policy platform as Bernie. I went to work on his campaign as an organization lead in California. They called Obama a socialist too. I have seen this script before.
It is true that a substantial number of voters don’t know the difference between Soviet style socialism and European Democratic Socialism, similar to what we have in America by the way. The Sanders campaign is aware of this. I am not in any way associated his campaign, but I am told by people who have access that there is a strategy being kicked around to help educate the public on this and compare his fight as similar to that of FDR to get Social Security and Medicare. Television ads that include this information for the general election would do great service to the public’s understanding.
I would advise including audio and video examples depicting the history of Republicans making similar claims with their apocalyptic warnings about Socialism.
He surely understands that making this distinction is important.
We are going to have conversations that have been long overdue.


dailykos--2020-02-23--Sunday Shows Reveal News Pundits Are No Better Prepared For Trump Election Gaslighting In 2020

Jumping around to the network Sunday News Shows today and found that the Trump administration sent out White House senior staff who were willing to gaslight the public that in fact the whole Russia is helping to elect Donald Trump story is misinformation being put out by the Democrats and there is no evidence of Russian meddling to help Trump .
Chuck Todd on Meet The Press was no match for Marc Short , Mike Pence ’ s Chief Of Staff .
It appears that the key to getting past Todd is to talk really fast and make a bunch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he doesn ’ t have time to bat them all down .
That particular interview starts at 27:00 .
At around the same time on another network , National Security Advisor Robert O ’ Brien was being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on This Week .
O ’ Brien opened with “ Its no surprise that Russia is helping the Sanders Campaign ” .
He honeymooned in Moscow ” .
Again , this is a National Security Advisor making this up .
Segment starts around 18:45 .
As we witnessed in the 2016 election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ill prepared to deal with the level of lying that the Trump administration is willing to do .
The news media provides the conduit for this to happen and their “ television journalists ” are not intellectually agile enough to be able to press them with the facts .
Trump knows Fox with play edited versions of these segments all next week to help him in his narrative that Russia doesn ’ t want him in office , he ’ s too tough , they want Bernie .
It ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who expects the news to effectively beat back on the gaslighting that is coming their way from Trump , his lying horde of prevaricators and their inept accomplices in the media .

Jumping around to the network Sunday News Shows today and found that the Trump administration sent out White House senior staff who were willing to gaslight the public that in fact the whole Russia is helping to elect Donald Trump story is misinformation being put out by the Democrats and there is no evidence of Russian meddling to help Trump. Chuck Todd on Meet The Press was no match for Marc Short, Mike Pence’s Chief Of Staff. It appears that the key to getting past Todd is to talk really fast and make a bunch of crazy assertions in a row so he doesn’t have time to bat them all down. That particular interview starts at 27:00.
At around the same time on another network, National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien was being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on This Week. O’Brien opened with “Its no surprise that Russia is helping the Sanders Campaign”. He honeymooned in Moscow”. Again, this is a National Security Advisor making this up. Segment starts around 18:45.
As we witnessed in the 2016 election the network and cable news outlets are ill prepared to deal with the level of lying that the Trump administration is willing to do. The news media provides the conduit for this to happen and their “ television journalists” are not intellectually agile enough to be able to press them with the facts. Trump knows Fox with play edited versions of these segments all next week to help him in his narrative that Russia doesn’t want him in office, he’s too tough, they want Bernie.
It’s going to be a rough election season for anyone who expects the news to effectively beat back on the gaslighting that is coming their way from Trump, his lying horde of prevaricators and their inept accomplices in the media.


dailykos--2020-02-23--Citizen Bloomberg: It’s Time For Mike To Back A Candidate

Some people are meant to be center stage .
Others are supporting players .
Mike Bloomberg has been both , as Mayor of New York City , for a norm-violating three terms , and as the guy who gives hundreds of millions of dollars , including powering up the Democratic candidates in the 2018 retaking of the House of Representatives .
He ’ s George Soros , with a big enough media empire to intimidate the Murdochs over at Fox News to allow them to bogeyman him .
He has seemingly limitless pockets .
Up until Elizabeth Warren ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada presidential debates , candidate Bloomberg was riding high on that power-base .
Warren stripped back the curtain , revealing a man with as many flaws , and peccadillos , as the man that he vowed to defeat .
`` Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns , of harassing women , and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop-and-frisk , '' Warren skewered .
`` Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t appear on a ballot until Super Tuesday , went beyond having “ a bad outing , ” as he phrased it .
Warren , and the rest of the candidates , have laid bare a lot of flaws that would put him , as a candidate , on a playing field where the greater-flawed Trump , aided by the Russians , could win , if both the Berniecrats , and enough minorities , now well aware of his policies in New York City , stay home .
This where Mike ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has promised to use his substantial infrastructure to back whomever the candidate will be , including the organization of well-paid 1000-lb gorillas , cream-of-the-crop organizers , that he ’ s been employing all over the country .
He got into the race , largely to defeat candidates like Sanders , and Warren , whose variations of wealth taxes are directly aimed at him .
It is unlikely that Bernie and Bloomberg be buds anytime at all .
So that plan , with the fabulous infrastructure , goes for naught .
It is unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pick up voters outside of “ the movement.
” This exceptionally arrogant , Trump-worthy tweet makes me wonder who , then , exactly is “ us.
” Bernie ’ s core , the Berniecrats , Bernie Bros. , or other epithets for the hard-cores of “ the movement , ” are a volatile mix of ex-hippies , unionists , with a smattering of marxists , lost Libertarians , and progressives who like the blue flave of Koolaid so much that they have lost sight of the one reality which Mr. Sanders does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hugely against any of his policies ever being carried out .
If Obama , who was hugely inclusive , even if he was , to the white-power toxic 39 % , LWB ( Leading-while-Black ) , was stopped dead in his tracks by Mitch McConnell .
The likelihood that the Turtle survives re-election is high .
There are so many roubles running about in Kentucky that it should be a second currency .
Moderate candidates , crucial to Sanders passing much of anything , are vulnerable to defeat if Sanders is at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take back the house , the Bernie revolution fizzles .
He ’ ll sit for four years , unable to do much other than issue executive orders to undo a lot of evil , but , given how effective Republicans are at taking a wrecking ball to institutions , these days , it would take three or four administrations to fully heal all of the damage done to the agencies that keep us safe , and healthy , and take care of the lands , and our environment .
Bloomberg especially doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more concrete policies that can pivot to the center .
She has experts who have helped draft them that she can tap to run an effective government .
Mike should thank heavens that both men , and women , are still as sexist as they are , and that both Warren and Klobuchar are female , taking the brunt of gender discrimination in the media .
So the time , Mr. Bloomberg , for backing a centrist candidate will not be after everyone in the field has bloodied up everyone else .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s desired policies line up best with both Mayor Pete Buttigieg and with Senator Amy Klobuchar .
Pete gets the slight edge for having landed two narrow wins in early primaries .
Yet Amy ’ s scrappy nature , and grounding , may be the right tone to strike in a debate with Trump , assuming that he allows that , and for rallying key states .
Backing both , as a solid Midwestern ticket , might actually unseat Trump in the territory where he eked out a narrow win in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You ’ re the numbers guy Mike .
Crunch them .
You ’ re a toxic ticket .
Unless Bernie can spell out how his revolution , and reality , meet successfully , he ’ s an equal liability .
You don ’ t love Liz ?
Take the top two , like you , and make do .
In any combo , the first woman , and the first gay man in the White House would be something for the history books that you made happen .
Time to get out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that you achieve results for which all Americans can thank you , rather than resent you .

Some people are meant to be center stage. Others are supporting players.
Mike Bloomberg has been both, as Mayor of New York City, for a norm-violating three terms, and as the guy who gives hundreds of millions of dollars, including powering up the Democratic candidates in the 2018 retaking of the House of Representatives.
He’s George Soros, with a big enough media empire to intimidate the Murdochs over at Fox News to allow them to bogeyman him. He has seemingly limitless pockets.
Up until Elizabeth Warren’s evisceration of Bloomberg at the MSNBC-hosted 2020 Nevada presidential debates, candidate Bloomberg was riding high on that power-base. Warren stripped back the curtain, revealing a man with as many flaws, and peccadillos, as the man that he vowed to defeat.
"Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women, and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop-and-frisk," Warren skewered. "Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another."
Bloomberg, who doesn’t appear on a ballot until Super Tuesday, went beyond having “a bad outing,” as he phrased it.
Warren, and the rest of the candidates, have laid bare a lot of flaws that would put him, as a candidate, on a playing field where the greater-flawed Trump, aided by the Russians, could win, if both the Berniecrats, and enough minorities, now well aware of his policies in New York City, stay home.
This where Mike’s mouth meets the trail: He has promised to use his substantial infrastructure to back whomever the candidate will be, including the organization of well-paid 1000-lb gorillas, cream-of-the-crop organizers, that he’s been employing all over the country.
He got into the race, largely to defeat candidates like Sanders, and Warren, whose variations of wealth taxes are directly aimed at him.
It is unlikely that Bernie and Bloomberg be buds anytime at all. So that plan, with the fabulous infrastructure, goes for naught. It is unlikely that Bernie pivots to the center, to pick up voters outside of “the movement.”
This exceptionally arrogant, Trump-worthy tweet makes me wonder who, then, exactly is “us.”
x I've got news for the Republican establishment. I've got news for the Democratic establishment. They can't stop us. — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 22, 2020
Bernie’s core, the Berniecrats, Bernie Bros., or other epithets for the hard-cores of “the movement,” are a volatile mix of ex-hippies, unionists, with a smattering of marxists, lost Libertarians, and progressives who like the blue flave of Koolaid so much that they have lost sight of the one reality which Mr. Sanders does not address:
The GOP deck stacked hugely against any of his policies ever being carried out. If Obama, who was hugely inclusive, even if he was, to the white-power toxic 39%, LWB (Leading-while-Black), was stopped dead in his tracks by Mitch McConnell.
The likelihood that the Turtle survives re-election is high. There are so many roubles running about in Kentucky that it should be a second currency.
Moderate candidates, crucial to Sanders passing much of anything, are vulnerable to defeat if Sanders is at the top of the ticket.
If Republicans take back the house, the Bernie revolution fizzles. He’ll sit for four years, unable to do much other than issue executive orders to undo a lot of evil, but, given how effective Republicans are at taking a wrecking ball to institutions, these days, it would take three or four administrations to fully heal all of the damage done to the agencies that keep us safe, and healthy, and take care of the lands, and our environment.
Bloomberg especially doesn’t like Warren. She has far more concrete policies that can pivot to the center. She has experts who have helped draft them that she can tap to run an effective government. Mike should thank heavens that both men, and women, are still as sexist as they are, and that both Warren and Klobuchar are female, taking the brunt of gender discrimination in the media.
So the time, Mr. Bloomberg, for backing a centrist candidate will not be after everyone in the field has bloodied up everyone else.
The time is now.
Attitudinally, Bloomberg’s desired policies line up best with both Mayor Pete Buttigieg and with Senator Amy Klobuchar. Pete gets the slight edge for having landed two narrow wins in early primaries. Yet Amy’s scrappy nature, and grounding, may be the right tone to strike in a debate with Trump, assuming that he allows that, and for rallying key states.
Backing both, as a solid Midwestern ticket, might actually unseat Trump in the territory where he eked out a narrow win in the gerrymandering nirvana of the Electoral College.
You’re the numbers guy Mike. Crunch them. You’re a toxic ticket. Unless Bernie can spell out how his revolution, and reality, meet successfully, he’s an equal liability. You don’t love Liz?
Take the top two, like you, and make do. In any combo, the first woman, and the first gay man in the White House would be something for the history books that you made happen.
Time to get out, and get back in, in the way that you achieve results for which all Americans can thank you, rather than resent you.