Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Manchin Declines to Endorse Biden for Re-Election
Manchin Declines to Endorse Biden for Re-Election
March 5, 2023 at 3:01 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 44 Comments
https://politicalwire.com/2023/03/05/manchin-declines-to-endorse-biden-for-re-election/
"SNIP........
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) declined to endorse a potential reelection effort by President Biden on Sunday, saying he preferred to wait to see other options, Fox News reports.
Said Manchin: “There’s plenty of time for the election. This is the problem with America right now. We start an election every time there’s a cycle coming up. The bottom line is, let’s see who’s involved. Let’s wait until we see who all the players are. Let’s just wait until it all comes out.”
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports Manchin wouldn’t rule out running for the 2024 presidential nomination, potentially pitting him against Biden.
........SNIP""
54 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
others. 
No Labels (founded and funded by RW billionaires and run by Joe Lieberman).
The Lieberman-led dark money No Labels is the parent organisation of the Gottheimer co-led Problem Solvers caucus who have been attacking Pelosi for years and trying to scupper Biden's agenda.
Some of the No Labels-affiliated super PACs—No Labels Action, Forward Not Back, United Together, Govern or Go Home, Citizens for a Strong America, and United for Progress
https://problemsolverscaucus.house.gov/about-co-chairs
Josh Gottheimer Is on a Mission to Destroy Joe Biden’s Presidency
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/07/gottheimer-is-on-a-mission-to-destroy-bidens-presidency.html
https://archive.ph/QCltv
Joe Manchin has absorbed most of the heat from liberals angry that the Senate has often blocked President Biden’s proposals. But Manchin represents an overwhelmingly Republican state, and he has been willing to negotiate a meaningful (albeit smaller) Senate reconciliation package that would move forward key progressive goals.
The true archvillain of the Biden presidency is Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat who keeps sticking the knife in Biden’s back. Axios’s Hans Nichols reports Gottheimer is organizing a small faction of House Democrats to present a “counteroffer” that would blow up the incipient deal with Manchin. The Gottheimer crew wants to take out the tax hikes on the wealthy that Manchin is proposing. That would mean what’s left of the bill could still contain the spending proposals, but it would lack the revenue measures that would make it a deficit-reducer, which is Manchin’s main rationale for supporting the bill in the first place. If that revenue is gone, Manchin’s support probably collapses, and the bill dies. Which is probably fine with Gottheimer, who may be evil, but isn’t stupid.
Gottheimer’s fixation seems to be insulating from taxation a slice of people so wealthy they account for a tiny percentage of even the most affluent districts. Gottheimer has cast himself as a hard-headed centrist who understands what the voters want. In an interview with Jason Zengerle for the New York Times Magazine, Gottheimer cast himself as a throwback to Clintonism:
Sounds great in theory. Except Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich. Clinton understood that the political sweet spot was to promise middle-class tax cuts while also taxing the top one percent. Gottheimer’s formula is to avoid giving any benefits to the middle class and focusing on protecting the one percent.
snip
Centrist Group Behind Pelosi Holdouts Plotted to Make Her ‘Bogeyman’
No Labels contemplated turning the incoming House Speaker into a political punching bag during a primary fight.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/centrist-group-behind-pelosi-holdouts-plotted-to-make-her-bogeyman
No Labels and the ‘Problem Solvers’ are Wolves of Wall Street in Sheep’s Clothing
Political organizations hide their pro-finance politics under the cloak of bipartisanship while they rake in funding from corporate interests.
https://inequality.org/research/no-labels-problem-solvers-wall-street/
How No Labels Went From Preaching Unity to Practicing the Dark Arts
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-no-labels-went-from-preaching-unity-to-practicing-the-dark-arts
The group, which was founded as a champion of political bipartisanship, has been quietly courting donations from some of the most notoriously partisan money men and women in politics.
Bipartisan ‘No Labels’ group’s super PAC network revealed: mega Chicago donors
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2018/3/12/18316470/bipartisan-no-labels-group-s-super-pac-network-revealed-mega-chicago-donors
No Labels funds dishonest attacks against Marie Newman to boost Blue Dog Dan Lipinski
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/13/1748758/-Centrist-group-No-Labels-funds-dishonest-attacks-against-Marie-Newman-to-back-Blue-Dog-Dan-Lipinski
Delusional Group Declares Donald Trump a ‘Problem Solver’
The only problem Trump could solve is that we don’t have a dumb enough president
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/delusional-group-declares-donald-trump-a-problem-solver-58107/
Group Tied To Lipinski Says Marie Newman Is 'A Holocaust Denier'
IL-3 Democratic challenger Marie Newman claims group tied to Congressman Dan Lipinski is texting voters saying she's a 'Holocaust denier.'
https://patch.com/illinois/oaklawn/group-tied-lipinski-claims-she-s-holocaust-denier
‘No Labels’ Needs A Warning Label
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-no-labels-mark-pocan_n_5c06b110e4b0cd916fb0b042
No Labels Makes Initial Investment in Bipartisan Presidential Ticket
The dark money group has spent millions of dollars preparing for a possible ticket with Sen. Joe Manchin as its presidential nominee in the event of a Biden-Trump rematch.
https://readsludge.com/2023/01/20/no-labels-makes-initial-investment-in-bipartisan-presidential-ticket/
The dark money group No Labels has put millions behind its plans to run a bipartisan unity presidential ticket if the 2024 nominees are Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Tax documents obtained by Sludge show that No Labels transferred $2.4 million in 2021 to an unknown organization that appears to be tied to the effort, which they describe as an “insurance policy” against divisiveness. The organization, named Insurance Policy for America, is based at the same office address as No Labels in Washington, D.C. No Labels did not respond to questions about who runs Insurance Policy for America, or other questions about its plans for a presidential ticket. No Labels listed a tax ID number for the group that belongs to one of its previous grant recipients, but that group’s tax return does not show it received the grant, and it denies having anything to do with No Labels’ 2024 unity ticket plans. Megan Shannon, vice president of No Labels, told Sludge over email that No Labels made a “clerical error,” but would not answer further questions about Insurance Policy for America.
No Labels began teasing the bipartisan presidential ticket in the media last summer. The amount of money that No Labels claims to have raised for the effort grew from $50 million as of a June 9 report in the Puck newsletter to $70 million as of a Sept. 1 New York Times op-ed. No Labels told conservative columnist David Brooks that throughout 2022 it worked with lawyers and petition firms on securing a No Labels ballot line in all 50 states and Washington D.C., as well as building a database of potential supporters. No Labels’ “unity ticket” would pair a Democrat and a Republican, possibly headlined by the group’s close ally and former co-chair Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), according to a Fox News segment and other reports. Facebook ads sponsored by No Labels emphasize that the ticket would be a “insurance policy for America” in case of a Biden-Trump rematch.
No Labels’ New York state chair Joe Lieberman, in remarks at Yeshiva University, described the plan as an insurance policy against 2024 nominees who are “not centrist.” Lieberman said No Labels is putting the pieces in place ahead of time, but that their plans could change based on political developments. “We’re not going to be able to make a rational decision until 2024, when we see which candidates both parties will nominate, as to whether there is a constructive role to be played by a third ticket — a bipartisan ticket,” Lieberman said. While No Labels does not publicly disclose its funders, one of its well-known backers has been billionaire Republican megadonor Nelson Peltz, who boasted to CNBC that he talked weekly with Manchin, calling him “the most important guy in D.C. Maybe the most important guy in America today.”
Documents obtained by The Daily Beast in a 2018 investigation showed that No Labels raised money from billionaire hedge fund managers and wealthy financiers, with “reoccurring donors” including billionaire private equity investor Marc Rowan, Trump supporter John Catsimatidis, and private equity co-founder Carl Ferenbach. The group has also received funding from trade associations such as the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, American Hospital Association, and the American Property Casualty Insurance Corporation. Last summer, Puck journalist Tara Palmeri wrote that No Labels C.E.O. Nancy Jacobson, a former Democratic National Committee finance chair, would not comment on the group’s funding sources, saying, “What’s best for democracy is confidentiality,” and then forwarded the article to her political network.
snip
The dark money group has spent millions of dollars preparing for a possible ticket with Sen. Joe Manchin as its presidential nominee in the event of a Biden-Trump rematch.
https://readsludge.com/2023/01/20/no-labels-makes-initial-investment-in-bipartisan-presidential-ticket/
The dark money group No Labels has put millions behind its plans to run a bipartisan unity presidential ticket if the 2024 nominees are Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Tax documents obtained by Sludge show that No Labels transferred $2.4 million in 2021 to an unknown organization that appears to be tied to the effort, which they describe as an “insurance policy” against divisiveness. The organization, named Insurance Policy for America, is based at the same office address as No Labels in Washington, D.C. No Labels did not respond to questions about who runs Insurance Policy for America, or other questions about its plans for a presidential ticket. No Labels listed a tax ID number for the group that belongs to one of its previous grant recipients, but that group’s tax return does not show it received the grant, and it denies having anything to do with No Labels’ 2024 unity ticket plans. Megan Shannon, vice president of No Labels, told Sludge over email that No Labels made a “clerical error,” but would not answer further questions about Insurance Policy for America.
No Labels began teasing the bipartisan presidential ticket in the media last summer. The amount of money that No Labels claims to have raised for the effort grew from $50 million as of a June 9 report in the Puck newsletter to $70 million as of a Sept. 1 New York Times op-ed. No Labels told conservative columnist David Brooks that throughout 2022 it worked with lawyers and petition firms on securing a No Labels ballot line in all 50 states and Washington D.C., as well as building a database of potential supporters. No Labels’ “unity ticket” would pair a Democrat and a Republican, possibly headlined by the group’s close ally and former co-chair Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), according to a Fox News segment and other reports. Facebook ads sponsored by No Labels emphasize that the ticket would be a “insurance policy for America” in case of a Biden-Trump rematch.
No Labels’ New York state chair Joe Lieberman, in remarks at Yeshiva University, described the plan as an insurance policy against 2024 nominees who are “not centrist.” Lieberman said No Labels is putting the pieces in place ahead of time, but that their plans could change based on political developments. “We’re not going to be able to make a rational decision until 2024, when we see which candidates both parties will nominate, as to whether there is a constructive role to be played by a third ticket — a bipartisan ticket,” Lieberman said. While No Labels does not publicly disclose its funders, one of its well-known backers has been billionaire Republican megadonor Nelson Peltz, who boasted to CNBC that he talked weekly with Manchin, calling him “the most important guy in D.C. Maybe the most important guy in America today.”
Documents obtained by The Daily Beast in a 2018 investigation showed that No Labels raised money from billionaire hedge fund managers and wealthy financiers, with “reoccurring donors” including billionaire private equity investor Marc Rowan, Trump supporter John Catsimatidis, and private equity co-founder Carl Ferenbach. The group has also received funding from trade associations such as the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, American Hospital Association, and the American Property Casualty Insurance Corporation. Last summer, Puck journalist Tara Palmeri wrote that No Labels C.E.O. Nancy Jacobson, a former Democratic National Committee finance chair, would not comment on the group’s funding sources, saying, “What’s best for democracy is confidentiality,” and then forwarded the article to her political network.
snip
The Lieberman-led dark money No Labels is the parent organisation of the Gottheimer co-led Problem Solvers caucus who have been attacking Pelosi for years and trying to scupper Biden's agenda.
Some of the No Labels-affiliated super PACs—No Labels Action, Forward Not Back, United Together, Govern or Go Home, Citizens for a Strong America, and United for Progress
https://problemsolverscaucus.house.gov/about-co-chairs
Josh Gottheimer Is on a Mission to Destroy Joe Biden’s Presidency
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/07/gottheimer-is-on-a-mission-to-destroy-bidens-presidency.html
https://archive.ph/QCltv
Joe Manchin has absorbed most of the heat from liberals angry that the Senate has often blocked President Biden’s proposals. But Manchin represents an overwhelmingly Republican state, and he has been willing to negotiate a meaningful (albeit smaller) Senate reconciliation package that would move forward key progressive goals.
The true archvillain of the Biden presidency is Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat who keeps sticking the knife in Biden’s back. Axios’s Hans Nichols reports Gottheimer is organizing a small faction of House Democrats to present a “counteroffer” that would blow up the incipient deal with Manchin. The Gottheimer crew wants to take out the tax hikes on the wealthy that Manchin is proposing. That would mean what’s left of the bill could still contain the spending proposals, but it would lack the revenue measures that would make it a deficit-reducer, which is Manchin’s main rationale for supporting the bill in the first place. If that revenue is gone, Manchin’s support probably collapses, and the bill dies. Which is probably fine with Gottheimer, who may be evil, but isn’t stupid.
Gottheimer’s fixation seems to be insulating from taxation a slice of people so wealthy they account for a tiny percentage of even the most affluent districts. Gottheimer has cast himself as a hard-headed centrist who understands what the voters want. In an interview with Jason Zengerle for the New York Times Magazine, Gottheimer cast himself as a throwback to Clintonism:
Sounds great in theory. Except Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich. Clinton understood that the political sweet spot was to promise middle-class tax cuts while also taxing the top one percent. Gottheimer’s formula is to avoid giving any benefits to the middle class and focusing on protecting the one percent.
snip
Centrist Group Behind Pelosi Holdouts Plotted to Make Her ‘Bogeyman’
No Labels contemplated turning the incoming House Speaker into a political punching bag during a primary fight.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/centrist-group-behind-pelosi-holdouts-plotted-to-make-her-bogeyman
Behind the scenes, No Labels and its leader, political strategist Nancy Jacobson, have been more skeptical of Pelosi and more willing to try and marginalize her among her members.
Emails obtained by The Daily Beast show that No Labels leadership contemplated a campaign to attack Pelosi aggressively after the primary campaign of centrist Rep. Dan Lipinski, who faced a primary challenge this year from Marie Newman, a progressive political neophyte. Lipinski’s pro-life stance had alienated a number of Democrats, but he was a proud member of the No Labels-backed House Problem-Solvers Caucus, and the group worked through a network of allied super PACs to support his reelection bid.
“Nancy, I have been thinking about our using Pelosi as the chief bogeyman in our messaging post-Lipinski,” began one email, subject line: “Pelosi as bogeyman.”
Emails obtained by The Daily Beast show that No Labels leadership contemplated a campaign to attack Pelosi aggressively after the primary campaign of centrist Rep. Dan Lipinski, who faced a primary challenge this year from Marie Newman, a progressive political neophyte. Lipinski’s pro-life stance had alienated a number of Democrats, but he was a proud member of the No Labels-backed House Problem-Solvers Caucus, and the group worked through a network of allied super PACs to support his reelection bid.
“Nancy, I have been thinking about our using Pelosi as the chief bogeyman in our messaging post-Lipinski,” began one email, subject line: “Pelosi as bogeyman.”
No Labels and the ‘Problem Solvers’ are Wolves of Wall Street in Sheep’s Clothing
Political organizations hide their pro-finance politics under the cloak of bipartisanship while they rake in funding from corporate interests.
https://inequality.org/research/no-labels-problem-solvers-wall-street/
Wall Street’s money oozes into many dark crevices in Washington. The financial services industry pumped $2 billion into the 2015-16 election cycle and managed to easily outpace that amount during this year’s midterm election. Other than the aggregate figures, there is much we don’t know about the exact ways this money is used to influence our political systems. But from time to time, we do get a particularly vivid peek into how Wall Street cash distorts debates about policy.
For years, the group No Labels and its close partner, the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, have quietly promoted policies that are wrapped in the mantle of bipartisanship and pitched as “non-ideological,” while being in the pay of corporate interests. They produce reports, sponsor events, and weigh in on policy on behalf of unnamed corporate donors.
Even when Wall Street isn’t directly funding specific activities, its pervasive funding helps get its talking points into conversations with members of Congress. At an orientation program run by Harvard University, former executives or lobbyists with Goldman Sachs, Bank of New York Mellon, and the private equity trade association were on the agenda as “experts” on Congress. The label fits in the way the Big Bad Wolf is an expert in porcine house construction. Recently published internal documents blew the lid off how much of the money behind No Labels comes from Wall Street. Its donors include executives from major asset managers (Trian Fund Management), hedge funds (Oaktree Capital Management) and private equity (Apollo Global Management), among others. Donors pledged $4.8 million to the No Labels non-profit arm in 2017, and also sent industry money to PACs affiliated with the group.
Former Democratic senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, who both worked as industry lobbyists after leaving Congress, are affiliated with No Labels and the Problem Solvers Caucus. Rep. Mark Pocan, now a co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, has written with remarkable candor about being “duped” by both organizations when he first joined the House in 2012. Beneath the veneer of bipartisanship, Pocan soon discovered the true aim of both groups — to import a pro-corporate agenda into Democratic politics.
snip
For years, the group No Labels and its close partner, the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, have quietly promoted policies that are wrapped in the mantle of bipartisanship and pitched as “non-ideological,” while being in the pay of corporate interests. They produce reports, sponsor events, and weigh in on policy on behalf of unnamed corporate donors.
Even when Wall Street isn’t directly funding specific activities, its pervasive funding helps get its talking points into conversations with members of Congress. At an orientation program run by Harvard University, former executives or lobbyists with Goldman Sachs, Bank of New York Mellon, and the private equity trade association were on the agenda as “experts” on Congress. The label fits in the way the Big Bad Wolf is an expert in porcine house construction. Recently published internal documents blew the lid off how much of the money behind No Labels comes from Wall Street. Its donors include executives from major asset managers (Trian Fund Management), hedge funds (Oaktree Capital Management) and private equity (Apollo Global Management), among others. Donors pledged $4.8 million to the No Labels non-profit arm in 2017, and also sent industry money to PACs affiliated with the group.
Former Democratic senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, who both worked as industry lobbyists after leaving Congress, are affiliated with No Labels and the Problem Solvers Caucus. Rep. Mark Pocan, now a co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, has written with remarkable candor about being “duped” by both organizations when he first joined the House in 2012. Beneath the veneer of bipartisanship, Pocan soon discovered the true aim of both groups — to import a pro-corporate agenda into Democratic politics.
snip
How No Labels Went From Preaching Unity to Practicing the Dark Arts
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-no-labels-went-from-preaching-unity-to-practicing-the-dark-arts
The group, which was founded as a champion of political bipartisanship, has been quietly courting donations from some of the most notoriously partisan money men and women in politics.
snip
According to internal documents obtained by The Daily Beast, No Labels encouraged financiers known for backing hyperpartisan causes to back its own super PACs. Among those courted were individuals who’ve bankrolled massive parts of the Republican Party’s infrastructure, including David Koch, former AIG head Hank Greenberg, and billionaire hedge-fund manager Paul Singer; as well as top supporters of President Donald Trump, including PayPal founder Peter Thiel, businessman Foster Friess, and Home Depot founder Ken Langone. No Labels also courted liberal-minded moneymen, including Michael Vachon, a top political adviser to George Soros (one of the biggest funders of Democratic and progressive causes) and Reid Hoffman, an investor and entrepreneur who has called Trump “worse than useless.”
The group also targeted Wendi Murdoch (ex-wife of Rupert and rumored Ivanka Trump pal), uber-agent Ari Emanuel, and Dallas Mavericks owner and oft-rumored presidential aspirant Mark Cuban. Another possible 2020 candidate, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, was also among dozens of high net-worth individuals approached about donating to No Labels’ super PACs.
snip
By the end of the 2018 cycle, six No Labels-affiliated super PACs—No Labels Action, Forward Not Back, United Together, Govern or Go Home, Citizens for a Strong America, and United for Progress—had collectively raised more than $11 million from 53 individual donors. The average contribution to the groups was about $124,000, illustrating their reliance on high-dollar donors rather than grassroots financial support.
snip
According to internal documents obtained by The Daily Beast, No Labels encouraged financiers known for backing hyperpartisan causes to back its own super PACs. Among those courted were individuals who’ve bankrolled massive parts of the Republican Party’s infrastructure, including David Koch, former AIG head Hank Greenberg, and billionaire hedge-fund manager Paul Singer; as well as top supporters of President Donald Trump, including PayPal founder Peter Thiel, businessman Foster Friess, and Home Depot founder Ken Langone. No Labels also courted liberal-minded moneymen, including Michael Vachon, a top political adviser to George Soros (one of the biggest funders of Democratic and progressive causes) and Reid Hoffman, an investor and entrepreneur who has called Trump “worse than useless.”
The group also targeted Wendi Murdoch (ex-wife of Rupert and rumored Ivanka Trump pal), uber-agent Ari Emanuel, and Dallas Mavericks owner and oft-rumored presidential aspirant Mark Cuban. Another possible 2020 candidate, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, was also among dozens of high net-worth individuals approached about donating to No Labels’ super PACs.
snip
By the end of the 2018 cycle, six No Labels-affiliated super PACs—No Labels Action, Forward Not Back, United Together, Govern or Go Home, Citizens for a Strong America, and United for Progress—had collectively raised more than $11 million from 53 individual donors. The average contribution to the groups was about $124,000, illustrating their reliance on high-dollar donors rather than grassroots financial support.
snip
Bipartisan ‘No Labels’ group’s super PAC network revealed: mega Chicago donors
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2018/3/12/18316470/bipartisan-no-labels-group-s-super-pac-network-revealed-mega-chicago-donors
With a boost from Chicago-area mega donors, including White Sox and Bulls Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, No Labels, a group advocating bipartisanship in Congress, has created a network of super PACs to influence the 2018 elections — but doesn’t want its fingerprints on the money.
One of the super PACs, United for Progress Inc., has spent $740,334 as of Sunday to bolster Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., in his March 20 Illinois Democratic primary battle with Marie Newman in the 3rd Congressional District. The names of the super PACS don’t link them to No Labels. A Sun-Times investigation determined super PACS related to No Labels include: United for Progress Inc.; Citizens for a Strong America Inc.; United Together; Govern or Go Home; and Forward, Not Back.
The Sun-Times inquiry included interviews with donors or their representatives and an examination of documents filed with the Federal Election Commission. United for Progress, Inc., is playing political hardball, attacking Newman in the commercials and direct mail pieces it paid for. Lipinski is part of a No Labels offshoot, the congressional “Problem Solvers Caucus.”
snip
THE ILLINOIS CONNECTIONS: Last year, a No Labels leader, former Sen. Joe Lieberman, was a draw at a meeting at the Chicago Club, 81 E. Van Buren. Lieberman was the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee who became an Independent senator from Connecticut.
snip
One of the super PACs, United for Progress Inc., has spent $740,334 as of Sunday to bolster Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., in his March 20 Illinois Democratic primary battle with Marie Newman in the 3rd Congressional District. The names of the super PACS don’t link them to No Labels. A Sun-Times investigation determined super PACS related to No Labels include: United for Progress Inc.; Citizens for a Strong America Inc.; United Together; Govern or Go Home; and Forward, Not Back.
The Sun-Times inquiry included interviews with donors or their representatives and an examination of documents filed with the Federal Election Commission. United for Progress, Inc., is playing political hardball, attacking Newman in the commercials and direct mail pieces it paid for. Lipinski is part of a No Labels offshoot, the congressional “Problem Solvers Caucus.”
snip
THE ILLINOIS CONNECTIONS: Last year, a No Labels leader, former Sen. Joe Lieberman, was a draw at a meeting at the Chicago Club, 81 E. Van Buren. Lieberman was the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee who became an Independent senator from Connecticut.
snip
No Labels funds dishonest attacks against Marie Newman to boost Blue Dog Dan Lipinski
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/13/1748758/-Centrist-group-No-Labels-funds-dishonest-attacks-against-Marie-Newman-to-back-Blue-Dog-Dan-Lipinski
Well what do you know: It turns out the mysterious super PAC called United for Progress, which has spent at least $740,000 to help conservative Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski in his primary against progressive challenger Marie Newman, received much of its funding from the aggressively centrist group No Labels and billionaire mega-donor Jerry Reinsdorf, who is chairman of both the Chicago White Sox and the Chicago Bulls. No Labels promotes the same sort of naive #bothsides mentality that plagues the world of cable news punditry, and even went so far as to moronically label Donald Trump a "problem solver" during his presidential campaign.
While support from No Labels itself should be a mark of shame for any Democrat running in a safely blue district like this one, the mailer they've been funding is even more disgraceful. It takes the guise of an ominous fake-but-official-looking letter from "Illinois Restaurant Enforcement" that claims the restaurant Newman once owned was guilty of health code violations, then proceeds to outright lie about the economic impact of the single-payer healthcare plan Newman supports.
One would expect to see Republicans launch these sorts of dishonest attacks against a progressive challenger, not those who support a nominal Democratic incumbent. And it's one more reason why Democrats in this 55-40 Clinton district can do a whole lot better than Dan Lipinski.
snip
While support from No Labels itself should be a mark of shame for any Democrat running in a safely blue district like this one, the mailer they've been funding is even more disgraceful. It takes the guise of an ominous fake-but-official-looking letter from "Illinois Restaurant Enforcement" that claims the restaurant Newman once owned was guilty of health code violations, then proceeds to outright lie about the economic impact of the single-payer healthcare plan Newman supports.
One would expect to see Republicans launch these sorts of dishonest attacks against a progressive challenger, not those who support a nominal Democratic incumbent. And it's one more reason why Democrats in this 55-40 Clinton district can do a whole lot better than Dan Lipinski.
snip
Delusional Group Declares Donald Trump a ‘Problem Solver’
The only problem Trump could solve is that we don’t have a dumb enough president
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/delusional-group-declares-donald-trump-a-problem-solver-58107/
Here are some labels that apply to Donald Trump:
–Racist
–Egomaniac
–Bloviator
–Delusional
–Liar
–Asshole
On Monday, the nonpartisan group No Labels gave him a new, and hilarious, one: problem solver.
Six presidential candidates – Democrat Martin O’Malley and Republicans Ben Carson, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Rand Paul and Trump – signed the organization’s Problem Solver Promise, officially making them No Labels Problem Solvers. The group says it will bestow the label on any candidate who signs its meaningless pledge.
No Labels declined to make an exception for Trump – the candidate who has proposed, among many other things, building a giant border wall, deporting 11 million people, banning Muslims from entering the country and shutting down mosques. In just the last two days, he’s come out in favor of direct head-to-head collisions in the NFL and elephant torture.
snip
–Racist
–Egomaniac
–Bloviator
–Delusional
–Liar
–Asshole
On Monday, the nonpartisan group No Labels gave him a new, and hilarious, one: problem solver.
Six presidential candidates – Democrat Martin O’Malley and Republicans Ben Carson, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Rand Paul and Trump – signed the organization’s Problem Solver Promise, officially making them No Labels Problem Solvers. The group says it will bestow the label on any candidate who signs its meaningless pledge.
No Labels declined to make an exception for Trump – the candidate who has proposed, among many other things, building a giant border wall, deporting 11 million people, banning Muslims from entering the country and shutting down mosques. In just the last two days, he’s come out in favor of direct head-to-head collisions in the NFL and elephant torture.
snip
Group Tied To Lipinski Says Marie Newman Is 'A Holocaust Denier'
IL-3 Democratic challenger Marie Newman claims group tied to Congressman Dan Lipinski is texting voters saying she's a 'Holocaust denier.'
https://patch.com/illinois/oaklawn/group-tied-lipinski-claims-she-s-holocaust-denier
LA GRANGE, IL -- Challenger Marie Newman is calling out Congressman Dan Lipinski for running a "dishonest machine-style campaign" after some of her supporters complained of receiving text messages stating that Newman is a "Holocaust denier." Newman and Lipinski are said to be in a statistical dead heat in the contentious Democratic primary in Illinois's 3rd Congressional District. Supporters said they began receiving the text messages this past weekend.
A woman who identifies herself as "Leslie Benjamini" from the Washington, D.C.-based No Labels group -- a political centrist organization comprised of Republicans, Democrats and Independents who aim to combat partisan dysfunction in politics by focusing on bipartisan problem solving -- texted a voter asking him if he planned to vote for Dan Lipinski in the March 20 Democratic primary. When the the receiver stated he is voting for Newman, Benjamini states that Lipinski's opponent is a Holocaust denier. Benjamini tells the receiver to look up "No Labels, a new group that is trying to get government working again." The message goes on to state that Lipinski is a "believer in this group."
"His opponent is a Holocaust denier among other things," the text goes on to say. "Please educate yourself before you vote. All I ask."
Lipinski does have an opponent who is a Holocaust denier who is running as the lone candidate in the Republican primary in Illinois' 3rd District, avowed neo-Nazi Art Jones of Lyons. In the second message sent to the Newman supporter, Benjamini mistakes the receiver's phone number for his mother's.
"For the second time I am NOT [NAME] … she is my mother and she hosted a fundraiser for Marie Newman. And for the record, I voted for her early Saturday [March 10]." "Thanks for voting," Benjamini texts back. "Did you know she's a Holocaust denier."
The No Labels group based in Washington, D.C., was founded in 2010. The group strives to "create a vibrant New Center that supports leaders who put country before party." No Labels inspired the Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group of congressional members that includes Lipinski. A Chicago Sun-Times investigation has also tied No Labels to such Super PACS as United for Progress Inc. As of late, United for Progress Inc. has been sent out a flurry of political hit pieces attacking Newman's progressive agenda, as well as TV and radio commercials. An angry Newman demanded an apology from Lipinski, accusing the congressman of running "dishonest machine campaign."
snip
A woman who identifies herself as "Leslie Benjamini" from the Washington, D.C.-based No Labels group -- a political centrist organization comprised of Republicans, Democrats and Independents who aim to combat partisan dysfunction in politics by focusing on bipartisan problem solving -- texted a voter asking him if he planned to vote for Dan Lipinski in the March 20 Democratic primary. When the the receiver stated he is voting for Newman, Benjamini states that Lipinski's opponent is a Holocaust denier. Benjamini tells the receiver to look up "No Labels, a new group that is trying to get government working again." The message goes on to state that Lipinski is a "believer in this group."
"His opponent is a Holocaust denier among other things," the text goes on to say. "Please educate yourself before you vote. All I ask."
Lipinski does have an opponent who is a Holocaust denier who is running as the lone candidate in the Republican primary in Illinois' 3rd District, avowed neo-Nazi Art Jones of Lyons. In the second message sent to the Newman supporter, Benjamini mistakes the receiver's phone number for his mother's.
"For the second time I am NOT [NAME] … she is my mother and she hosted a fundraiser for Marie Newman. And for the record, I voted for her early Saturday [March 10]." "Thanks for voting," Benjamini texts back. "Did you know she's a Holocaust denier."
The No Labels group based in Washington, D.C., was founded in 2010. The group strives to "create a vibrant New Center that supports leaders who put country before party." No Labels inspired the Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group of congressional members that includes Lipinski. A Chicago Sun-Times investigation has also tied No Labels to such Super PACS as United for Progress Inc. As of late, United for Progress Inc. has been sent out a flurry of political hit pieces attacking Newman's progressive agenda, as well as TV and radio commercials. An angry Newman demanded an apology from Lipinski, accusing the congressman of running "dishonest machine campaign."
snip
‘No Labels’ Needs A Warning Label
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-no-labels-mark-pocan_n_5c06b110e4b0cd916fb0b042
I was duped.
When I was elected to Congress in 2012, I attended the Bipartisan Program for Newly Elected Members of Congress at Harvard University. I was so excited to be a member of a branch of government for the most awesome country on the planet. At the program, one of the presentations was from a group named No Labels. The organization put forward a proposal for governing that meant working across the aisle to solve problems and stopping the gridlock in Washington. I was excited! While I was a strong progressive in the Wisconsin Legislature, that was my governing approach. By working with people who do not always agree with you, you find out what you have in common and you can get good things done.
snip
However, things quickly went south. I attended a few meetings at the outset, but the rhetoric wasn’t about finding ways to get things done and breaking gridlock ― rather it was more about finding more centrist, more corporate and more special interest-focused things to do. Soon thereafter, No Labels became involved in elections with a closely contested U.S. Senate race in Colorado, backing Republican Cory Gardner over Democrat Mark Udall. That didn’t seem right. A group that wasn’t supposed to pick labels was doing exactly that: picking a label. When asked to join the Problem Solvers Caucus, members were never told that this would be part of the program.
snip
I drifted away from the organization, as apparently did most people who thought it was focused on trying to break through the gridlock in Washington. No Labels’ membership has dwindled steadily since 2015. Fast-forward to the past few weeks, when No Labels’ Problem Solvers Caucus tried to threaten Nancy Pelosi’s speakership. While No Labels was originally advertised as a group committed to getting things done and breaking gridlock, it now seems more focused on stopping Pelosi and providing a fast track for special interests and lobbyists.
Worse, this past week I’ve read a few articles regarding what No Labels has been up to in the last couple of years. First, the organization spent almost twice as much helping re-elect Republicans as it spent helping Democrats. Second, reporters reviewed email correspondence that showed No Labels contemplating a plan to attack Pelosi and use her leadership as a wedge to divide congressional Democrats. And third, it’s clear that No Labels never had any meaningful ultimatums or demands on rules for leadership during eight years of a Republican-led House, or over the last four years of a Republican-led Senate. No Labels only has challenges for Democratic leadership in the House, specifically, for our next speaker, Nancy Pelosi.
That sure seems like a label to me. Look, I get it. No Labels is slick, and I got duped. But no other current or newly elected member of Congress should fall for its shtick. No Labels is a centrist, corporate organization working against Democrats with dark, anonymous money to advance power for special interests. Period.
snip
When I was elected to Congress in 2012, I attended the Bipartisan Program for Newly Elected Members of Congress at Harvard University. I was so excited to be a member of a branch of government for the most awesome country on the planet. At the program, one of the presentations was from a group named No Labels. The organization put forward a proposal for governing that meant working across the aisle to solve problems and stopping the gridlock in Washington. I was excited! While I was a strong progressive in the Wisconsin Legislature, that was my governing approach. By working with people who do not always agree with you, you find out what you have in common and you can get good things done.
snip
However, things quickly went south. I attended a few meetings at the outset, but the rhetoric wasn’t about finding ways to get things done and breaking gridlock ― rather it was more about finding more centrist, more corporate and more special interest-focused things to do. Soon thereafter, No Labels became involved in elections with a closely contested U.S. Senate race in Colorado, backing Republican Cory Gardner over Democrat Mark Udall. That didn’t seem right. A group that wasn’t supposed to pick labels was doing exactly that: picking a label. When asked to join the Problem Solvers Caucus, members were never told that this would be part of the program.
snip
I drifted away from the organization, as apparently did most people who thought it was focused on trying to break through the gridlock in Washington. No Labels’ membership has dwindled steadily since 2015. Fast-forward to the past few weeks, when No Labels’ Problem Solvers Caucus tried to threaten Nancy Pelosi’s speakership. While No Labels was originally advertised as a group committed to getting things done and breaking gridlock, it now seems more focused on stopping Pelosi and providing a fast track for special interests and lobbyists.
Worse, this past week I’ve read a few articles regarding what No Labels has been up to in the last couple of years. First, the organization spent almost twice as much helping re-elect Republicans as it spent helping Democrats. Second, reporters reviewed email correspondence that showed No Labels contemplating a plan to attack Pelosi and use her leadership as a wedge to divide congressional Democrats. And third, it’s clear that No Labels never had any meaningful ultimatums or demands on rules for leadership during eight years of a Republican-led House, or over the last four years of a Republican-led Senate. No Labels only has challenges for Democratic leadership in the House, specifically, for our next speaker, Nancy Pelosi.
That sure seems like a label to me. Look, I get it. No Labels is slick, and I got duped. But no other current or newly elected member of Congress should fall for its shtick. No Labels is a centrist, corporate organization working against Democrats with dark, anonymous money to advance power for special interests. Period.
snip
included) who are the House Caucus for its parent org, No Labels, and who are and were led by Gottheimer, repeatedly (along with a few Blue Dogs) tried to block and/or gut Biden's BBB (along with gutting the BIF), and they succeeded in getting Pelosi and Biden to de-link the BIF and the BBB, thus removing the leverage Pelosi and Schumer had to get both passed (which ended up playing a key role in the BBB dying).
Looking at final votes only often does not tell the tale of damage done (perfect example is Manchin shutting down BBB, which never came to a vote, or massive cuttings out of vital bill provisions, or Biden nominees blocked before they get to a final vote, such as Manchin (again) with Neera Tanden).
House Moderates Say They Won’t Back Budget Vote Until Infrastructure Bill Passes
The letter from nine Democrats, enough to block passage, threatens their party’s two-track plan to pass both a $3.5 trillion social policy budget blueprint and an infrastructure bill.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/us/politics/house-democrats-budget-infrastructure.html
Nine moderate House Democrats told Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday that they will not vote for a budget resolution meant to pave the way for the passage of a $3.5 trillion social policy package later this year until a Senate-approved infrastructure bill passes the House and is signed into law. The pledge, in a letter released early Friday, is a major rift that threatens the carefully choreographed, two-track effort by congressional Democrats and the Biden administration to enact both a trillion-dollar, bipartisan infrastructure deal and an even more ambitious — but partisan — social policy measure. The nine House members are more than enough to block consideration of the budget blueprint in a House where Democrats hold a three-seat majority.
snip
Ms. Pelosi has called the House back early from its summer recess to consider the budget resolution the week of Aug. 23. To assuage the progressives, Ms. Pelosi promised that she would not bring the infrastructure bill to a vote in the House until the Senate passed the social policy bill. The liberal progressives fear that once the infrastructure bill is signed, moderate Democrats in the House and Senate will withdraw their support for the far-reaching social policy measure. (my add: that is exactly what happened)
snip
The draft letter was signed by Mr. Gottheimer and Representatives Filemon Vela of Texas, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Ed Case of Hawaii, Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Carolyn Bourdeaux of Georgia, Jared Golden of Maine, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Jim Costa of California.
snip
“This is President Biden’s agenda, this is the Democrats’ agenda, this is what we ran on and we need to deliver,” Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a leader in the Progressive Caucus, said of the social policy bill. “It is important for us not to miss the mark, and I don’t see a conflict.” But her moderate colleagues do. “We will not consider voting for a budget resolution until the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passes the House and is signed into law,” they wrote.
snip
The letter from nine Democrats, enough to block passage, threatens their party’s two-track plan to pass both a $3.5 trillion social policy budget blueprint and an infrastructure bill.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/us/politics/house-democrats-budget-infrastructure.html
Nine moderate House Democrats told Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday that they will not vote for a budget resolution meant to pave the way for the passage of a $3.5 trillion social policy package later this year until a Senate-approved infrastructure bill passes the House and is signed into law. The pledge, in a letter released early Friday, is a major rift that threatens the carefully choreographed, two-track effort by congressional Democrats and the Biden administration to enact both a trillion-dollar, bipartisan infrastructure deal and an even more ambitious — but partisan — social policy measure. The nine House members are more than enough to block consideration of the budget blueprint in a House where Democrats hold a three-seat majority.
snip
Ms. Pelosi has called the House back early from its summer recess to consider the budget resolution the week of Aug. 23. To assuage the progressives, Ms. Pelosi promised that she would not bring the infrastructure bill to a vote in the House until the Senate passed the social policy bill. The liberal progressives fear that once the infrastructure bill is signed, moderate Democrats in the House and Senate will withdraw their support for the far-reaching social policy measure. (my add: that is exactly what happened)
snip
The draft letter was signed by Mr. Gottheimer and Representatives Filemon Vela of Texas, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Ed Case of Hawaii, Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Carolyn Bourdeaux of Georgia, Jared Golden of Maine, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Jim Costa of California.
snip
“This is President Biden’s agenda, this is the Democrats’ agenda, this is what we ran on and we need to deliver,” Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a leader in the Progressive Caucus, said of the social policy bill. “It is important for us not to miss the mark, and I don’t see a conflict.” But her moderate colleagues do. “We will not consider voting for a budget resolution until the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passes the House and is signed into law,” they wrote.
snip
The BBB (after being gutted from $3.5 trillion down to $2.2 trillion, then down to $1.75 trillion) ended up dying in late 2021 due to Manchin. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was later passed, but it was a pale shadow of the BBB.
All in all, out of Biden's original $6.1 trillion in new spend for the two infrastructure bills' frameworks ($2.6 trillion for the hard infrastructure, and $3.5 trillion for the BBB aka human infrastructure) only a total of $987 billion in new spend got passed ($550 billion in the BIF, and $437 billion of new spend in the IRA). 84 per cent of Biden's original framework new spend was flushed, with much of that cutting coming as the result of the Problem Solvers (led by Gottheimer) in the House, and Manchin/Sinema (who coordinated with the Problem Solvers) in the Senate.
BIF
Out of Biden's original $2.6 trillion framework in new spend, they ripped out around 80%, leaving only $550 billion in new spend, spread out over 10 years. The other $650 billion was simply renewals of pre-existing programmes (mostly transportation related) that have been on the books for years, under Trump, Obama, etc.
That $550 billion in new spend is, when measured per year (so $55billion X 10 years), less than 1% of all federal monies spent per year lately.
The Infrastructure Plan: What’s In and What’s Out
Biden's original plan:
What was left after they took a 2+ trillion USD hatchet to it
Out of Biden's original $2.6 trillion framework in new spend, they ripped out around 80%, leaving only $550 billion in new spend, spread out over 10 years. The other $650 billion was simply renewals of pre-existing programmes (mostly transportation related) that have been on the books for years, under Trump, Obama, etc.
That $550 billion in new spend is, when measured per year (so $55billion X 10 years), less than 1% of all federal monies spent per year lately.
The Infrastructure Plan: What’s In and What’s Out
Biden's original plan:
What was left after they took a 2+ trillion USD hatchet to it
Build Back Better Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_Back_Better_Act
The Build Back Better Act was a bill introduced in the 117th Congress to fulfill aspects of President Joe Biden's Build Back Better Plan. It was spun off from the American Jobs Plan, alongside the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as a $3.5 trillion Democratic reconciliation package that included provisions related to climate change and social policy. Following negotiations, the price was lowered to approximately $2.2 trillion. The bill was passed 220–213 by the House of Representatives on November 19, 2021. During negotiations, Senator Joe Manchin publicly pulled his support from the bill for not matching his envisioned cost of about $1.75 trillion due to provisions that lasted for less than ten years. After renegotiating the reduction of the Build Back Better Act's size, scope, and cost with Biden and Democratic congressional leaders, Manchin ultimately rejected the bill over the procedural tactics used.
The original version of the bill was estimated to cost $3.5 trillion. It may have increased the state and local tax deduction (SALT) deduction limit (which was set at $10,000 in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017). It was also expected to include the Protecting the Right to Organize Act labor bill, set a clean electricity standard called the Clean Energy Performance Program,and reform immigration to the extent allowed by reconciliation rules.
snip
Here’s what’s in the Senate version of the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion spending plan
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/09/politics/senate-reconciliation-package/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_Back_Better_Act
The Build Back Better Act was a bill introduced in the 117th Congress to fulfill aspects of President Joe Biden's Build Back Better Plan. It was spun off from the American Jobs Plan, alongside the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as a $3.5 trillion Democratic reconciliation package that included provisions related to climate change and social policy. Following negotiations, the price was lowered to approximately $2.2 trillion. The bill was passed 220–213 by the House of Representatives on November 19, 2021. During negotiations, Senator Joe Manchin publicly pulled his support from the bill for not matching his envisioned cost of about $1.75 trillion due to provisions that lasted for less than ten years. After renegotiating the reduction of the Build Back Better Act's size, scope, and cost with Biden and Democratic congressional leaders, Manchin ultimately rejected the bill over the procedural tactics used.
The original version of the bill was estimated to cost $3.5 trillion. It may have increased the state and local tax deduction (SALT) deduction limit (which was set at $10,000 in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017). It was also expected to include the Protecting the Right to Organize Act labor bill, set a clean electricity standard called the Clean Energy Performance Program,and reform immigration to the extent allowed by reconciliation rules.
snip
Here’s what’s in the Senate version of the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion spending plan
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/09/politics/senate-reconciliation-package/index.html
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
https://www.investopedia.com/inflation-reduction-act-of-2022-6362263
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, H.R. 5376, is designed to reduce the deficit and lower inflation while investing in domestic energy production and lowering healthcare drug costs. The bill became law with President Biden’s signature on Aug. 16, 2022. In essence, the law is a scaled-down version of the Build Back Better Act proposed by the Biden administration in 2021.
The law is expected to raise $737 billion, require total investments of $437 billion, and result in a deficit reduction of more than $300 billion. It allows Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices and extends the expanded Affordable Care Act (ACA) program for three years, through 2025.
https://www.investopedia.com/inflation-reduction-act-of-2022-6362263
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, H.R. 5376, is designed to reduce the deficit and lower inflation while investing in domestic energy production and lowering healthcare drug costs. The bill became law with President Biden’s signature on Aug. 16, 2022. In essence, the law is a scaled-down version of the Build Back Better Act proposed by the Biden administration in 2021.
The law is expected to raise $737 billion, require total investments of $437 billion, and result in a deficit reduction of more than $300 billion. It allows Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices and extends the expanded Affordable Care Act (ACA) program for three years, through 2025.
more
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) is gauging support among House centrists for a counteroffer to the emerging Senate reconciliation package, with one big clause: No new taxes.
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/13/manchin-schumer-reconciliation-house-centrists
Why it matters: Any attempt to modify a deal that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer may reach with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) could scuttle the entire package. That could deprive President Biden — and vulnerable lawmakers — of a pre-election win at a time of real weakness.
Gottheimer's discussions target a small group that includes Reps. Carolyn Bourdeaux (D-Ga.), Ed Case (D-Hawaii), Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), Susie Lee (D-Nev.) Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) and Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.).
The big picture: Manchin has been adamant he wants higher taxes on corporations to bring down the deficit and help fight inflation. For months, his shorthand has been a 2:1 ratio of fresh revenues to new spending, with some $500 billion going to deficit reduction.
But early House discussions led by Gottheimer don't envision any new taxes on corporations or wealthy individuals. The Trump tax cuts on corporations and individuals would remain in place. Gottheimer's formula would leave $177 billion for deficit reduction — a step toward Manchin but a long way from his roughly $500 billion target.
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/13/manchin-schumer-reconciliation-house-centrists
Why it matters: Any attempt to modify a deal that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer may reach with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) could scuttle the entire package. That could deprive President Biden — and vulnerable lawmakers — of a pre-election win at a time of real weakness.
Gottheimer's discussions target a small group that includes Reps. Carolyn Bourdeaux (D-Ga.), Ed Case (D-Hawaii), Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), Susie Lee (D-Nev.) Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) and Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.).
The big picture: Manchin has been adamant he wants higher taxes on corporations to bring down the deficit and help fight inflation. For months, his shorthand has been a 2:1 ratio of fresh revenues to new spending, with some $500 billion going to deficit reduction.
But early House discussions led by Gottheimer don't envision any new taxes on corporations or wealthy individuals. The Trump tax cuts on corporations and individuals would remain in place. Gottheimer's formula would leave $177 billion for deficit reduction — a step toward Manchin but a long way from his roughly $500 billion target.
Scoop: Manchin and Sinema advising House centrists
https://www.axios.com/2021/08/19/manchin-sinema-advising-house-centrists
Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) are privately advising the nine House centrist lawmakers (Josh Gottheimer of NJ, Filemon Vela of TX, Henry Cuellar of TX, Ed Case of HI, Kurt Schrader of OR, Carolyn Bourdeaux of GA, Jared Golden of ME, Vicente Gonzalez of TX, and Jim Costa of CA) trying to force Speaker Nancy Pelosi to hold a quick vote on the Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure deal, lawmakers and aides tell Axios.
Why it matters: The two moderates who've stirred the biggest frustrations and held the most sway in their party over the infrastructure negotiations are helping allies in the House to stake out — and defend — their centrist position. They're offering encouragement and advice on how to negotiate with the White House and congressional leadership. Their behind-the-scenes support also indicates the degree to which Manchin and Sinema have prioritized getting the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure deal to final passage and in front of Biden for his signature.
The big picture: The conversations are bolstering House centrists' resolve. Since publicly demanding last Friday that Pelosi first bring the infrastructure bill to the floor before considering a larger package through a $3.5 trillion budget plan, the nine lawmakers have been subject to a combination of private scorn and public pressure.
Pelosi referred to their tactics as ??amateur hour” in a leadership call earlier this week, Politico reports. On Tuesday, the White House released a statement endorsing Pelosi’s approach, expressing “hope that every Democratic member supports this effort to advance these important legislative actions.” Pelosi quoted from that statement in a “Dear Colleague” letter she sent to reiterate her position. The nonpartisan group "No Labels" is launching a six-figure ad by on national cable to give some air cover to the nine lawmakers. "This unbreakable nine is showing America that we can still do amazing things," says the ad's narrator.
snip
https://www.axios.com/2021/08/19/manchin-sinema-advising-house-centrists
Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) are privately advising the nine House centrist lawmakers (Josh Gottheimer of NJ, Filemon Vela of TX, Henry Cuellar of TX, Ed Case of HI, Kurt Schrader of OR, Carolyn Bourdeaux of GA, Jared Golden of ME, Vicente Gonzalez of TX, and Jim Costa of CA) trying to force Speaker Nancy Pelosi to hold a quick vote on the Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure deal, lawmakers and aides tell Axios.
Why it matters: The two moderates who've stirred the biggest frustrations and held the most sway in their party over the infrastructure negotiations are helping allies in the House to stake out — and defend — their centrist position. They're offering encouragement and advice on how to negotiate with the White House and congressional leadership. Their behind-the-scenes support also indicates the degree to which Manchin and Sinema have prioritized getting the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure deal to final passage and in front of Biden for his signature.
The big picture: The conversations are bolstering House centrists' resolve. Since publicly demanding last Friday that Pelosi first bring the infrastructure bill to the floor before considering a larger package through a $3.5 trillion budget plan, the nine lawmakers have been subject to a combination of private scorn and public pressure.
Pelosi referred to their tactics as ??amateur hour” in a leadership call earlier this week, Politico reports. On Tuesday, the White House released a statement endorsing Pelosi’s approach, expressing “hope that every Democratic member supports this effort to advance these important legislative actions.” Pelosi quoted from that statement in a “Dear Colleague” letter she sent to reiterate her position. The nonpartisan group "No Labels" is launching a six-figure ad by on national cable to give some air cover to the nine lawmakers. "This unbreakable nine is showing America that we can still do amazing things," says the ad's narrator.
snip
And again, to show the poison that No Labels is (which was the main point of my long reply to the other poster above, not Gottheimer):
No Labels calls Jan. 6 committee 'partisan' and 'divisive' (which of course was pumped up by Fux News)
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2022/05/13/five_facts_on_the_january_6_committee_832087.html
The Big Insight: Despite an early attempt at bipartisanship, the January 6 Committee’s work has become a partisan exercise about which the public is skeptical.
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2022/05/13/five_facts_on_the_january_6_committee_832087.html
The Big Insight: Despite an early attempt at bipartisanship, the January 6 Committee’s work has become a partisan exercise about which the public is skeptical.
Link to tweet
and there was a link to a story claiming that the Congressman (who has a perfect record of voting with President Biden) was "on a mission to destroy Biden's presidency".
No Labels/Problem Solvers shenanigans?
I already addressed the Gottheimer part (including the misleading nature of your attempt to make all dependent on looking at final votes only) in a lot of depth.
He is the Dem leader of No Label's House bi-partisan caucus, the Problem Solvers, and repeatedly tried to block/obstruct Biden and Pelosi (including coordination with Sinema and Manchin, which I documented), so it is not like some random person I tossed in.
Better questions:
Why doesn't he come out and condemn his caucus's parent org No Labels for preparing (for a long time now) to gear up for a 3rd Party spoiler?
Why doesn't he come out and condemn No Labels for calling The January 6 Committee a partisan and divisive exercise?
BTW
You seem fascinated with that New York Magazine pic. Would you like a framed copy for your flat (or house, as it may be).
I am sure they can arrange it.
It is pretty cool, I admit. I love pixilation effects aesthetically.
rendering of Rep. Gottheimer "cool".
People are equally free to insist that a highly problematic image is merely a cool "pixilation effect", despite the fact that there are no pixels in the image.
As for offers made by strangers on the internet on behalf of New York Magazine, well ... there you have it.
"should he run again, I think that I, you know, I think … we’ll take a look at it."
New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday would not commit to backing President Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential election, saying instead that “we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.”
“I think if the President has a vision, then that’s something certainly we’re all willing to entertain and examine when the time comes,” Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat who wields a significant amount of influence over the party’s progressive wing, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” when asked if she plans to support Biden in his 2024 reelection bid.
“That’s not a yes,” Bash said, to which the congresswoman replied: “We should endorse when we get to it, but I believe that the President’s been doing a very good job so far, and, you know, should he run again, I think that I, you know, I think … we’ll take a look at it.
“But right now, we need to focus on winning a majority instead of a presidential election,” she added, referring to this year’s November midterm elections
“I think if the President has a vision, then that’s something certainly we’re all willing to entertain and examine when the time comes,” Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat who wields a significant amount of influence over the party’s progressive wing, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” when asked if she plans to support Biden in his 2024 reelection bid.
“That’s not a yes,” Bash said, to which the congresswoman replied: “We should endorse when we get to it, but I believe that the President’s been doing a very good job so far, and, you know, should he run again, I think that I, you know, I think … we’ll take a look at it.
“But right now, we need to focus on winning a majority instead of a presidential election,” she added, referring to this year’s November midterm elections
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-biden-reelection-2024-cnntv/index.html
