Don't believe the people trashing Corey Booker. He's a strong progressive.

[pnwmom]

Progressive Punch scores him as having the 5th most progressive record in the Senate. But the top two scorers based on the numbers -- Kamala Harris and Chris Van Hollen -- have only been in office since January -- not much time to accrue a record.

So of the Senators who have served more than this current term, Booker is ranked #3, almost equal to Elizabeth Warren.

For some reason there are people already trying to kneecap Booker -- probably knowing he will be a strong contender in 2020. We shouldn't be assisting in the dirty work.

http://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Why not go for the Senator with the #1 progressive record?

[pnwmom]

2. She ranks highest because she just started in January -- few votes to be counted.

For 2017 overall they have the same score right now.

I'm fine with her. But I don't see people here disparaging her the way they do him.

[padfun]

151. But for those of us in California

Kamala Harris is the future of the Democratic party. Her and Xavier Becerra. These two will be a great benefit to this country over the next few decades. There are others out there as well. They are young, exciting, and liberal.

[pnwmom]

154. I like her a lot. But that has nothing to do with my feeling

that people shouldn't be distorting the records of other Democrats.

I saw it over and over with Hillary, and now with Booker.

[MyOwnPeace]

3. My concern with him.....

is his education record - it looks like he'd be a supporter of DeVos and her voucher/privatization movement.

[pnwmom]

6. Except that he voted against her Senate confirmation. n/t

[MyOwnPeace]

8. That's good, but........

here's the history that concerns me:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/19/schooled


"CLIFF NOTES:"

*He worked with Chris Christie to "reform" Newark schools.
*Booker had been a champion of charters and vouchers since he was elected to the city council in 1998.

[pnwmom]

20. Newark schools were in terrible shape. Trying vouchers wasn't an awful

response.

Why are people so anxious to find the ONE thing they don't like about Booker? With you it's vouchers, with someone else it's some other disqualifying issue.

But NO candidate is perfect. We have to understand that and not be unfair to any of the candidates contending for 2020, whether or not Booker is among them.

[MyOwnPeace]

39. Doesn't everybody have a "+" and "-" list?

You are right - NO candidate is perfect. I stated his position and history regarding public schools simply as a concern to me. This is NOT unfair on my part - it is educating others about his past actions.
I was also against President Obama's Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, and his "Race to the Top." Is that unfair? Does that mean that I'd not like to still have HIM (Obama) in the White House? HA!
I voted for President Obama twice, and I'd vote for him a third time if I could!

And yes, Newark schools were in terrible shape, but trying vouchers WAS an awful response!

[pnwmom]

89. Sure. But the people who falsely say he is not a progressive

because they don't like a particular position on a particular issue are being deeply unfair.

Would you agree with saying Bernie isn't a progressive because he was states rights on gun control? I doubt it.

[Demsrule86]

147. You had to try something.

[George II]

41. Read the WHOLE story, not just select quotes. Remember, he was mayor of New Jersey's largest city..

First, he did NOT "work with Chris Christie", rather he got Chris Christie to work with HIM. Also, you may have missed this:

Booker "wanted to overhaul the school district. He would need Christie’s help. The Newark schools had been run by the state since 1995, when a judge ended local control, citing corruption and neglect. A state investigation had concluded, “Evidence shows that the longer children remain in the Newark public schools, the less likely they are to succeed academically.” Fifteen years later, the state had its own record of mismanagement, and student achievement had barely budged."

[MyOwnPeace]

62. George II

Fifth paragraph from the first section (I. THE PACT):

"In the back seat of the S.U.V., Booker proposed that he and Christie work together to transform education in Newark."

Does that not mean that he "worked with Chris Christie?" You are really looking for someone to throw stones at. Perhaps you should "read the WHOLE story" more carefully.

I DID read the WHOLE story. I did NOT say that Booker is not a worthy candidate, but rather, and I'll say this AGAIN, it shows a history of his actions regarding issues. We have the right, indeed, the obligation, to know as much about a candidate as possible.

[George II]

64. Booker invited Christie to go on that tour of Newark, and he proposed that Christie work with him.

[pnwmom]

91. Booker had no choice but to work with the Governor. Newark is not a wealthy city

and he needed help from the state. It wasn't his fault that the Governor of NJ was a Republican.

GOOD FOR HIM that he could work with the Governor. He'd have been a terrible mayor if he couldn't.

[rpannier]

18. That is true

But he is a supporter of charter schools
That's the place that he loses me
I'd never vote for him in a primary
Fortunately, I don't live in NJ

[pnwmom]

21. He voted against DeVos's confirmation

after trying out charter schools to see iF they could solve Newark's intractable problems.

[Mars and Minerva]

38. Booker will never be pure enough for the purists.

It hardly pays to argue.

[rpannier]

65. It hardly pays to argue with the bumper sticker crowd

either.
Ergo You
I wrote I'd never vote for him in the primary
As you should know, primaries are places to vote for the person that we think is best to represent the party, our state and country.
Your concern about purity would carry more weight if you had made an attempt to address/refute my point, rather than relying on a slogan that says absolutely nothing.

[Demsrule86]

132. No one is pure enough for the purist because if they were honest...they just don't like Democrats.

[Mars and Minerva]

175. And most of them aren't New Jersey voters.

[rpannier]

56. That is true

Which I did acknowledge
But it does not mean he does not still support them. It only means he voted against her, not necessarily the ideas

[pnwmom]

88. Charters are fine in my state because they get the same funding

that all other schools get, and they have to accept students on the same basis as other schools, and they have to meet all the same standards.

And they are public charter schools, not for-profit. But the parents have more of a hand in running them than in many other schools.

[angrychair]

98. The problem with charter schools doesn't change

A school isn't performing (often because of a smaller tax base and/or less affluent school district) so they give parents the ability to move their kid, with a voucher i.e. The money said school was getting for the kid and now is not because the money now goes to a charter school and the already cash-strapped public school is mandated to improve "or else" and people continue to beat up on them when they are forced to work with less money, larger class sizes, fewer teachers and barely running facilities with an ever decreasing pool of money and wonder why they continue to fail?? Hmmmm...

It has also been found that charter schools, on a dollar for dollar basis, don't perform any better and sometimes worse (due to lack of reporting or testing requirements of some charter schools it is literally impossible to know), than an equivalently funded public school.
What charter school do well is racial segregation and exclusion of mentally and physically challenged young people.

I think the idea of giving parents more control is ridiculous. Nothing but some politician playing politics with a child's education. Professional educators go to college, get degrees in their subject matter and in general education and have constant continuing education requirements and have a certification process for a reason.
In no other profession would it be acceptable for a random person off the street to show up at your job and tell you how you are going to do it. That is insane.
No wonder education is so screwed up.

[JustAnotherGen]

47. I'm proud of my two votes for him

Because your approach would sink us this year.

This is the year we vote to un-gerrymander our districts.

Denigrating the highest profile Democratic member who is boots on the ground helping us - it's wrong.

You have next year and 2020 to worry about.

Our Primary is next week.

It's party first. If you can't be with us while we throw the bastards out - when he is WITH us - then stand down.

It's the same bullshit as in 2009 and 2013. Understand - We have a Chance to smack Trump in the face right in his own little golf course yard.

We get it - we don't count in Presidential elections.

We do count at home. He's helping us.

[rpannier]

58. Good for you

I still would not vote for him in a primary
I stand by that
That is why we have primaries. To allow you ane me to identify whom we feel would be best representative of the party and country
As I said, fortunately I do not live in New Jersey
I never said he was a horrible person.

[fleabiscuit]

60. Very good.

[treestar]

141. Dumping someone over one issue

is how Republicans win.

[George II]

35. Ooops...in the immortal words of Emily Litela, "never mind"! Thanks for pointing that out.

[MyOwnPeace]

43. Hey!

What's that "itty, bitty thing right there on the end of your nose?"

Emily Litella - Gilda Radner - what a sad loss.

[George II]

46. Off topic, but the sad part of that was several botched diagnoses in the course of her illness.

[MyOwnPeace]

66. But.........

a wonderful legacy with "Gilda's Club."

[dsc]

169. He did vote against Devos which is to his credit

but his views on education are just horrible. No way I would vote for him in a primary.

[mcar]

4. It's been disheartening, to say the least

to see some here so intent on smearing him.

[FarPoint]

30. Not sure they are committed as many of us really are about tRump Crime Family.

I will not be critical of Democrats for a while....we have bigger fish to catch.

[vi5]

5. Remember when he essentially recommended Obama be nicer to Wall Street?

How pissed off everyone on here was?

I honestly can't keep up with who I'm supposed to be pissed at and who I'm supposed to think is the savior of the Democratic party.

And as a matter of fact I'm tired of us looking for saviors AND scapegoats. No one person is going to save us or destroy us, but our need to think in those terms is going to destroy us.

We spend all this time in between presidential elections worrying and thinking about the White House and who our candidate may or may not be, and not nearly enough time worrying about every other election for every single other office from local dogcatcher all the way up to Senator. Until we break out of that cycle we are going to continue to be in the position we are in which is up shits creek.

[Phoenix61]

9. I agree completely with there being too much

focus on the presidential election and not nearly enough on all the others.

[rpannier]

19. +1

[FarPoint]

40. Ohhhh

Who cares really...

We have a septic infection in the White House and you want to focus on a skin rash...

[vi5]

122. No...

..my point was that if we were spending our time focusing our time, energy, money, and attention on things OTHER than just the presidency then there wouldn't be this problem. If we stopped looking for a savior for the next presidential election or a scapegoat for the last one and just started focusing on getting as many offices and positions as we could get our hands on then the presidency would be as neutered a position as it should rightfully be.

If we had enough power to keep checks and balances on the White House than nobody would be giving a shit what Corey Booker or anyone else says. But because we have this need to engage in a cult of personality in which everyone is either the one who will bring us to the promised land or the one to bring about our downfall, we are in a position where it all feels hopeless.

[murielm99]

7. There are people who come here

who are not really Democrats, who trash anyone who shows some leadership potential for 2020. I don't care whom they allege to follow. Their only intent is to weaken our party.

Look closely at everything they say. Watch how they distort the voting records and words of our Democrats in Congress and in the various state leadership positions.

[FarPoint]

31. Exactly!

We stand together.

[George II]

42. Or even blatantly misrepresent articles about Democrats or what Democrats say.

[sheshe2]

54. Yup...

[fleabiscuit]

61. Nailed it. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

67. Amen!

Adding - can help bring star power to a state wide election. Now - the Democratic party turned its back on us the past two gubernatorial elections. These folks come across the exact same way the leadership did in 2013.

It's bullshit. One more time. Who gets elected this year will drive how our districts look in 2022.

We also are extremely activist oriented this year. Every big action - Booker unabashedly cheers our loud angry asses on.

[brer cat]

77. +1000

You nailed it muriel.

[Alice11111]

81. They sound robotic...a.comeback to everything

They probably are Russian bots. They have put them on many blogs

[NurseJackie]

104. You are correct. And that's sad.

[Demsrule86]

145. They are not that hard to spot...doom and gloom...and no Democrat meets their standards...and most

are strident Hillary haters as well.

[uponit7771]

171. +1

[50 Shades Of Blue]

10. The Kushners hosted fundraisers for Booker and he attended their wedding.

It that doesn't give them a reason to expect him to cover for them, I'd like to know what would.

[canetoad]

13. The Clintons attended

Trump's wedding to Melania.

[FarPoint]

15. So...

They went for the food....I would of done the same.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

53. That really bothered me, as does the Clintons associating with Kissinger.

[fleabiscuit]

63. And sharing the planet.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

82. It's sad that any Democrat is OK with Kissinger.

No sarcasm tag necessary because I don't have to try to justify the indefensible.

[fleabiscuit]

103. I'm not asking for anyone here to be my moral compass, and don't look to BS for his bs.

[Demsrule86]

148. It is sad the some Democrats demonize other Democrats because of who they might know...Kissinger has

been around for years and is knows by both Democrats and Republicans.

[JCanete]

157. Let's be fair, its more than just "knowing" Kissinger in this case. This is tricky territory though,

and I'm not willing to wade in and pass judgement at this time, whether or not its okay to say nice things publicly about people who have done villainous things. Politics, at least with foreign nations, kind of requires it. On the other hand, propping up the reputation of a man like Kissinger with kind words and talks of his valuable mentoring is both problematic to me, and also entirely reasonable. People aren't one thing. There are many dimensions to them, and they all have justifications for what they do, but it is dicey territory, and it does, fair or not, reflect on the person offering up praise.

[Demsrule86]

168. I don't consider Kissinger as awful as the rest of you...they were all like that back in the day.

I don't see much difference in what he did and what Reagan's or even Bush's guy did. I expect people know know all sorts of people socially. I don't see why everyone has to fit in some perfect progressive pattern or they are not worthy ...don't care what anyone says about Kissinger...he was what in the Nixon administration? This is almost 50 years ago...a big who cares. We have way more important issues ...living in the past is a waste of time.

[Alice11111]

85. He asked to please come as a favor, then he stabs them

Right in the back. Creepy.

[Demsrule86]

140. So? Trump was a prominent New Yorker and may have been a Dem back then...

[pnwmom]

25. Kushner had been a lifelong Democrat. Would you expect Booker

to be able to see into the future and know Kushner would be backing the GOP now?

Kushner also gave money to Hillary, but I don't think they're big admirers of each other anymore. And Kushner used to give to Chuck Schumer. So what.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

50. It was obvious what the Kushners were because they still are - scum.

[FarPoint]

32. So what...

I don't give a shit

[50 Shades Of Blue]

49. They're foul creeps, that's what.

[Demsrule86]

133. It doesn't give him a reason...

And fundraisers are needed...Jared and Ivanka who claimed to be Democrats gave money and held fundraisers for Democrats...lets not pretend it was anything else.

[treestar]

144. WTH?

You think everyone is totally corrupt? They go to a wedding and he will "cover" for them. If they hosted fundraisers for him when he is that high on the liberal list, maybe they are more liberal than pretending to be now.

[pnwmom]

163. He was a lifelong Democrat but he has left the party and joined the Trump team.

If that doesn't give you a reason NOT to expect Booker to cover for Kushner, then obviously nothing will.

[58Sunliner]

11. Corey Booker does not walk on water and if we can not scrutinize his record what are we?

Sheeple? Get over it please. No one is immune. Doesn't make him worthless, but the process demands accountability. No one is trying to kneecap him. Some have legitimate concerns about his promotion of policy and his liabilities.

[FarPoint]

14. We need to stay focused and united...

Make no mistake... Corey is not our problem... Republicans are the cause of American demise....

[Alice11111]

84. Mostly, yes.&Comey. We need to be able examine our own

Fault and learn from it. This site, as wonderful as it is, doesn't allow us to examine ourselves toward improving in the future.

[FarPoint]

120. We just have to embrace what we got at the moment...

We are in a life threatening status with the tRump Administration and GOP control

[Alice11111]

164. Yes, we are.

[Demsrule86]

143. Good for our site...there is way too much of what you describe, and it cost us the 16 election...

as well as past elections (2000,2004,2010,2014 etc). The constant barrage of complaints about Democrats and the Democratic Party drives voters away...you see the GOP 'examining' themselves? Of course not, because they want to win, and they have won while we 'examined' ourselves into a powerless nothing of a party...we don't have the states, the congress or the white House...has to stop.

[Alice11111]

166. You may not SEE the Repubs examining themselves, but

they figure out exactly what went wrong and what went right, and tailor it to fit. We scream unfair at their cheating, but we don't do hard self exams, and defensive work, IMHO.

We govern better, but they are better at elections, with a lot of cheating. I don't want to cheat, but I'm tired of being run over because we don't have a strong defence.

[Demsrule86]

167. No they don't...the don't worry about what is wrong with themselves...they only point out our faults

and that is what we need to do...stop attacking one another...and turn our attention to the Republicans...they won and we lost...doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same reaction...what is that called insanity.

[pnwmom]

23. Scrutinizing his record is fine. Distorting it is not. The people who pretend

he is not a strong progressive are distorting and misrepresenting his record.

Of those in the Senate who started BEFORE January 2017, only TWO have a SLIGHTLY more progressive record than Booker.

[58Sunliner]

110. I have not seen this distortion, only people questioning his judgment and worrying about the optics

of his campaign funds and his unwillingness to even call for the suspension of JK's security clearance. The ethics alone of not calling for the suspension/revoking of someone who has potentially put our country at risk and is part of a corrupt administration working with a hostile foreign power is stupefying.

[pnwmom]

111. He's calling for an immediate investigation. He didn't say NO

to the idea of pulling his clearance. If the facts warrant it -- and they're likely to do so -- then they should pull it.

But it doesn't help the Democrats to appear as if we're constantly pre-judging people as guilty. You and I can do it here -- but he's a US Senator and he's going by-the-book.

And I'm also not worried about the optics of his campaign funds. Kushner and his whole family were lifelong Democrats and gave to a number of Democrats till they got on board the Trump train. I'm not worried that Hillary is a secret collaborator, even though Kushner gave to her at one time, or Chuck Schumer. And I'm not worried about Booker, either.

Kushner has switched sides and there's no reason to think that some PAST donations he made to some Democrats are going to affect how they handle him now. He's rejected the Democratic party and they won't be feeling any residual loyalty. It doesn't work that way.

[58Sunliner]

170. Kushner and his whole family were lifelong Democrats-lifelong weasels.

I don't have time to tell you all the stuff you apparently want to ignore about the Kushners. Suffice to say, he should not have a security clearance. Booker should not be stating a case for wait and see, which is wait to investigate. Seriously?? Booker wants to wait on suspending/revoking security clearance for someone who has gross ethics violations???? The only thing missing from half the posts here are pom-poms and rose colored glasses.

[George II]

44. It's one thing to scrutinize his record, it's another (not you) to distort his record.

[JustAnotherGen]

51. Do it next year

We need solidarity from Democratics THIS year. In NJ.

Do you understand how much light he's bringing to our Indivisible movement here?

He's the highest profile guy we've got. While the party wasted time and money in Montana - they could have helped young fresh candidates in Assembly and State Senate races going against Republicans - in national districts HRC won.


Do you really want us to get stuck with that fucking asshole Kim G? And don't tell me to not worry.

Christie won twice and Trump is the President.

[Else You Are Mad]

80. I did notice a lot of Kim G. signs out there today...

That said she is too closely linked to Christie to win. While I am not a fan of his, I am certain that Phil Murphy will be our next governor. So long as Murphy doesn't mess up like Corzine, we will have him for a second term.

[JustAnotherGen]

119. I noticed

Wisniewski's attack ads this weekend. Folks need to understand that a lot of folks here work:

On Wall Street
Big Pharma
Telecom


We live good lives and as individual households pour tons of money into this state.



The welder, coal miner, auto line worker messaging will be an epic failure.

I want a public bank, defense against the Trump Atrocity, and a clean environment.

[58Sunliner]

109. I appreciate that, but do you really think CB has a problem with being out of touch with his base on

these issues? I think it is a miscalculation on his part. Frankly I question his judgment. And I think on these boards, it is the appropriate place to do so. Trying to shut people down isn't going to work. Trying to intimidate them by multiple postings isn't going to work either. Feel free to disagree, I do.

[JustAnotherGen]

118. You mean multiple postings

By people taking potshots at a man well loved in his state?

Yep - those multiple postings taking potshots at a Democratic Party Senator are disgusting. On that we agree.

And he is not out of touch.

My reasons for supporting educating poor black children by any means necessary as a citizen of NJ are in direct alignment with his.

Black folks need to shut out an America that disregards are children or gets to them "later". We've been waiting for 152 years - but they didn't wait in Mayor Bookers city. Keep on questioning the values of the voters in this state.

I've lived here 11 years. I'm telling you - if you want him gone . . .your approach will back fire. You would do better to move here and run against him. I would start now. Our Congressional district candidates started this past week for 2018 - and we will be leveraging their candidacy the next 5 months.


It's going to take a lot more than a backhanded compliment to shut me up.

[58Sunliner]

173. Actually I mean multiple postings from Booker's supporters that en masse are an effort to shut

people up. Legitimate criticism isn't a death wish, it is a conversation. And you are making a lot of assumptions from what little I have said. If I did not know any better I'd say you were muddying the waters. Straw men. With little children and race thrown in.
"multiple postings taking potshots at a Democratic Party Senator are disgusting"-if you were republican, I'd say you sound like a propagandist.
"Keep on questioning the values of the voters in this state. " Uh, where did that happen in my post? Oh, it didn't LOL. I questioned Booker, not the voters.

[uponit7771]

68. Unfair bashing is NOT scrutinizing ... wow ... how many times do we have to post this?!!?

[58Sunliner]

108. Unfair bashing?? I am critical of his comments about not impeaching or revoking/suspending

JK's security clearance. If I did not know any better, I would say there is a concerted effort on this board to try to silence any criticism of CB and that is truly disturbing. Talk about unfair bashing!

[George II]

152. Did you read Booker's exact words and the context? He's an attorney, a smart attorney, and...

...he rightfully wants all the facts before making a final decision.

[TomCADem]

96. CNN: Cory Booker: 'The Russians are coming, what are we going to do about it?'

Yes, let us look at his record. Cory Booker has been outspoken in condemning Russia's electoral interference.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/10/politics/cory-booker-james-comey-erin-burnett/

Washington (CNN)Sen. Cory Booker -- who said he has a "serious problems" with former FBI Director James Comey -- is among the Democratic leaders who find President Donald Trump's firing of the official "very problematic.

"The fact that we have the President of the United States firing someone who has an active investigation on them erodes the public trust," Booker, of New Jersey, said Wednesday on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront."

"I've been one of those people with serious problems with Comey ... but this is very problematic," Booker said.

Booker's comments came one day after Trump -- acting on a letter from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein -- shocked Washington by firing Comey, the man responsible for the bureau's investigation to possible ties between Trump campaign associates and Russia.

[Demsrule86]

135. Democrats must stop eating their own and there is no need to bash Democrats , we have

GOP types do that for us...and sheeple is a republican word...one not used much here. Welcome to DU.

[treestar]

146. He is ahead of Bernie on that list

In fact 11 others are.

[FarPoint]

12. I'm with you on this...

My trash talk always is directed towards Republicans... always .... Deplorables.

[geek tragedy]

16. Yeah, the compulsion to condemn people on our side

seems unwise.

[George II]

94. And sometimes obsessive.

[elmac]

17. I won't trash any progressive

unless they want to play nice with fascist pigs and if they do that they lose their progressive title. I Haven't seen that, yet.

[Cha]

22. Of course he's not perfect but there does

seem to be a bunch that are trying to make him seem worse than reality.

What's their freaking agenda?

Mahalo, pnwmom

[HarmonyRockets]

112. We want better Democrats

And we want to make the party better.

People that constantly defend Democrats when they act like Republicans, what's their freaking agenda?

[Cha]

113. Then deal in reality.. Cory Booker isn't

"acting like a Republican".

[Demsrule86]

136. no person is perfect...we vote for the candidate with the D next to his name in elections or

we get Republicans.

[aikoaiko]

24. There are things I like about Corey Booker and some things I don't.

His coziness with moneyed interests and education can be disconcerting, but I'm not upset about his recent comments suggesting that more needs to be known before hammering Kushner.

But I'm also not unhappy that folks are letting him know they want him to be different.

[Demsrule86]

137. He represents Jersey...this is a state where jobs depend on Wall Street...same

as New York. And Wall Street is not our enemy. They need proper regulation.

[Demit]

26. He's an operator. What's hard to figure about that?

When he's for us, that's great. But never lose sight of the fact that he's for himself.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

55. That says it all.

[fleabiscuit]

69. You're entitled to your opinion, and we are able to determine our own facts.

[uponit7771]

70. Link and quote him being "for himself"? tia

[Hekate]

27. Thanks so much for this, pnwmom. I get so sick of kneejerk kneecapping of Democrats by Dems.

I mean what is the point of that except divide and conquer?

[NurseJackie]

28. I am too. You're not alone.

[MiddleClass]

37. Isn't that the exact thing Russian robos did on Facebook

Bernie people not voting for Hillary gave us Donald Trump.

When we going to learn

[GulfCoast66]

97. But remember...

Often times that kneecapping is being done by Progressives, not members of the Democratic Party. They are often, but not always synonymous.

[Honeycombe8]

29. I don't know much about him. He's not well known nationally.

Whoever has national appeal will be the strongest candidate. Historically, that is not the most progressive.

I don't know his positions on issues. But he seems fine. He presents well, has a good voice, communicates well, seems like the leader type. The few times I've seen him speak at length about something.

I don't see many on that list that are well known and have national appeal, though.

[applegrove]

33. Yep. Either the Russians or the GOP are out early sabotaging democratic

potential candidates for 2020. They are probably looking for a new Benghazi to hang around the necks of any potential Democratic candidate. Why? Benghazi worked wonders on Hillary's campaign for the GOP.

[George II]

34. There are some very impressive Progressives in the top 10 of that list.

[melman]

59. Clever

[TheDebbieDee]

36. Sen Booker is getting the Hillary treatment...

Prominent Dems who MAY run for President in 2020 are having their reputations pre-emptively dirtied so that a portion of Dems and progressives will be looking to vote for the next Gary Jones or Jill Stein...

I believe they have already targeted Sen Elizabeth from Massachusetts. And if Sen Kristin Gillibrand from NY seems like a likely candidate, they (Russian TROLLS or left-leaners who are doing free-lance or are trying to avoid being typecast as tribal libs) will drag her image thru the mud as well.

Any Dem is in danger of this type of smear...

[TomCADem]

74. Politico - The Russians Are Coming. Again.

Would true progressives and liberals spend more effort tearing down a leading Democrat, rather than Trump's ongoing efforts to roll back protections for workers and the environment?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/russia-foreign-meddling-american-democracy-214994

Amid all of the news and noise surrounding Russia and the election, it is important to understand precisely what Russian intelligence tried to do last year in the United States. Lost amid the high-profile hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails—as well as, perhaps, the targeting other campaigns, like Marco Rubio’s—were two other attacks and attempted attacks that, in my opinion, are no less worrisome.

First, Russia used fake social media accounts and fake websites to help spread disinformation and to amplify anti-Clinton messages. Second, Russian-backed hackers attempted to penetrate U.S. voting systems. The FBI issued an August bulletin to state governments warning about attempted infiltrations of the Illinois Board of Elections as well as in Arizona; ABC News later reported in September that nearly half of U.S. states had seen their voting systems targeted by foreign hackers. “There’s no doubt that some bad actors have been poking around,” Comey said at the time.

By all accounts, these foreign hackers appear to have been unsuccessful in their attempts to penetrate our voting systems—partly because of how antiquated and disparate those systems are in this country, spread across 50 states and some 175,000 precincts and 114,000 polling places. But have no doubt: If they could have successfully penetrated our voting systems and altered results, they would have—and if presented with the opportunity in the future, they will try again and hope to succeed.

“Their No. 1 mission is to undermine the credibility of our entire democracy enterprise of this nation,” Comey said at last week’s hearing. And they barely bother disguising their hand—their goal, in fact, is for us to know what they’re doing to us. As Comey explained, “Their loudness, in a way, would be counting on us to amplify it by telling the American people what we saw and freaking people out about how the Russians might be undermining our elections successfully.”

[HarmonyRockets]

114. They've already targeted Elizabeth Warren?

To me it seems like a lot of the same people who are mad about Booker being criticized were criticizing Warren for being "troubled" by Obama's paid Wall Street speech.

I don't think this has anything to do with Russian trolls. I think this is basically the ConservaDems vs the Progressives.

[TheDebbieDee]

121. And who benefits from stoking the fires between conservadems and progressives?

[George II]

160. Unfortunately the smearing isn't coming only from Russian trolls, but wolves in Democrats' clothing.

[billh58]

45. Trolls never sleep n/t

[WellDarn]

52. Hey folks! You still have time

to run over and defend Bob Menendez for working with Trump to roll back Obama's steps to normalize relations with Cuba.

[hrmjustin]

57. The purists strike again.

I am all for criticism of our side but it seems some have turned it into a sport to trash Democrats because they are not perfect or pure.

[uponit7771]

71. Not only that but it looks like purist bullshit unfair bashing and record distortions !!

[Madam45for2923]

72. Yep! Some that don't wish us DEMS well -are bent on coming here to sabotage our party & leaders.

We can tell who they think are threats. Cory Booker is one!

They are so obvious. What a joke.

[TheDebbieDee]

76. I agree... This is divide and conquer stuff! You would think we at DU

are smart enough to double-check these items even iif they come from sources that we "trust".

[talking-liberally]

73. Balked on big pharma and Kushner

He voted against importing meds from Canada (he is the third highest amount of donations from big pharma) and now he won't follow dems. position that Kusner's security clearance should be revoked. The guy is a spy. Revoke and then review.

Liberals/dems should criticize liberals/dems. Hell, it's worked for the tea party.

[TomCADem]

75. Calling for A Full Investigation of Trump's Family Is Defending Kushner?

How is that different from what Bernie said?

[Hoyt]

79. I would suggest a little research on drug Bill.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/other-98/viral-image-about-democratic-senators-and-big-phar/

[melman]

117. So would I

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/139820/cory-bookers-explanation-voting-cheap-prescription-drugs-doesnt-track

[pnwmom]

100. He didn't "balk on big pharma." Like the two progressive Senators in my state,

he held out for a better bill with more protections for consumers. Many of the people who blindly supported the first bill didn't realize that Canada does NOTHING to regulate the sale of drugs through Canada on the way to the US. Here in Washington, we've already had the problem of fake drugs being sold through fake online Canadian pharmacies. The original bill would have made that worse. The bill that Booker, and Murray, and Cantwell ended up supporting offered important consumer protections.

Also, the reason he has a high number of donations from "big pharma" is because NJ is the headquarters for a number of major pharma companies. So they have thousands of employees working at those companies who donate to their preferred candidates -- and they often happen to be Democrats. All those individual employee donations get added up together and reported by employer-- so it appears that he gets an unusual amount of support from pharma companies. But he doesn't. Those donations are from individual employees who happen to work at Johnson & Johnson or another pharma co in NJ. NJ has more big pharma companies than almost any other state, so they get more donations from those employees, too.

[ismnotwasm]

78. I don't fucking believe them

In all senses of the phrase

[MelissaB]

83. If you are talking about the thread I posted yesterday,

I stand by it. If you don't like it, sorry.

I think he gave a shitty answer and said so.

[pnwmom]

86. There have been many posts on different topics over the years.

He's often targeted around here, despite being one of the strongest progressives in the Senate.

[MelissaB]

92. As I just posted in the other thread, his answer ticked me off &

I expressed it. I really hoped better from and from all dems at this point on the Russia issue.

[WoonTars]

87. As you should. Don't let anyone bully you away from your position.

I happen to agree with you. Booker is far too smooth an operator for my liking. There's a fine line between being an effective politician working both sides of the aisle, and simply playing both sides of the fence. Still not convinced Booker is the former and not the latter.

[pnwmom]

93. It's not fair to ignore his progressive voting record

because you think he's too "smooth." A lot of people thought Obama was too smooth, too. But they both got things done.

[WoonTars]

99. I think that's one of my worries. He's too eager to compromise in order to "get things done"...

...without necessarily fighting hard enough for what was right.

Time will tell, fortunately (or not!) we have plenty of time before the next Presidential election. What we need to focus on is the mid-terms where we could seriously limit the damage of a full Dump term in the WH.

[pnwmom]

101. Look at his actual voting record and tell me where he has compromised too much. n/t

[WoonTars]

102. His drug vote for a start...

....But it's not just about his Senate voting record is it?

[pnwmom]

105. Yes. It's just about his Senate record. That's where he is now

and that is what gives the best idea of where he stands now.

Do you hold it against Bernie that he USED to be states' rights on marriage equality? That he argued as recently as 2006 that states should be able to decide for themselves? I doubt it.

Most people who are thinking, rational people change their minds when confronted with new information or circumstances. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

P.S. I don't know what you mean by "drug vote" but if you are criticizing him because he didn't vote for the hastily drafted amendment with no consumer protections, and waited to support the better version that my Senators supported (because of a problem we had with fake drugs coming here from online Canadian storefronts) then I disagree.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9133627

[fleabiscuit]

106. Look up. nt

[Plucketeer]

90. Come 20120

assuming some sort of human race still thrives - the telepathic chatter will be: "Who the hell is Corey Booker???"

[pnwmom]

95. LOL. Very true. n/t

[applegrove]

107. Meme of Corey Booker tonight should be sverchki (crickets in russian).

Or the meme was started by trollsky.

[HarmonyRockets]

115. Nothing to see here

[pnwmom]

116. Do you understand that Kushner was a lifelong Democrat till

he left the party and started campaigning for DT?

Booker owes him nothing. They've parted ways.

And I'm no more concerned about your second picture than I am of the photos of Hillary with DT in the past. Did you know that DT used to say he was a Democrat?

He isn't a Democrat anymore and Booker has been strongly taking him on, calling him a liar and delusional, among other things.

[NurseJackie]

123. LOL

Reminds me of the same type of photo-smearing that was used against Hillary during the General Election.

Sad.



PS: CORY BOOKER ROCKS!

[WellDarn]

124. By the way

While I won't say it counts for nothing, remember that counting politicians' votes on bills to determine whether they voted on the "progressive" or "regressive" side of a particular bill is a poor measure of whether that politician is progressive WHEN, as is the case, NO PROGRESSIVE BILLS MAKE IT TO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE.

In such a situation, a politician's vote for ANY bill that is even a step better than the "regressive" alternative (even if it isn't as progressive as a bill that never made it to the floor for a vote) gets counted as a "progressive" vote.

Given the current makeup of Congress, ProgressivePunch's methodology reveals loyalty to our Party's position on a given issue, i.e., is the politician a "good Democrat."

Corey Booker is clearly a good Democrat and, quite frankly, there is almost no room for debate on that issue. If you support Booker for being a good Democrat, you are 100% justified. Quite frankly, I strongly support him for that very reason. In fact, I actually believe his position on Kushner is the more prudent one. We do appear nothing but reactionary when we start screaming "impeachment" or "jail" before the facts are in.

All that notwithstanding, don't try to call a supporter of charter schools (and he STILL is), who voted in accordance with Big Pharma's wishes, and who has a long history of compromise on important issues, a "progressive."

[pnwmom]

127. Our states voters approved charter schools and there's nothing wrong with them.

It's all how you do it.

Ours use the same money any school uses, follows the same state regulations, and has to admit all students just like any other school. Also, for-profit schools are not allowed.

The Booker vote on pharma that people here complain about was a vote against a sloppily written amendment allowing people to purchase drugs from Canada that lacked consumer protections. My State's Senators also voted against the amendment, too, our state has already had a problem with fake drugs here arriving from online Canadian pharmacies (Canada does NOT regulate purported drugs coming here through Canada, so we can't count on their safety system).

Booker joined my Senators in supporting an improved law with consumer protections built in. Neither the amendment nor the latter bill passed the GOP Congress, though, so it's funny (and typical) to see DUers blame the Dems.

And yes, someone who compromises on important issues -- like Lyndon Johnson, Ted Kennedy, and Barack Obama -- can be a great progressive, as long as you have moved the country in a progressive direction. All or nothing is NOT the aim of a truly great progressive.

[WellDarn]

142. I've heard all the excuses on Big Pharma

Booker supported the industry-supported version. Fake drugs from Canada are a FRACTION of the problem for people in need of drugs than is the highway robbery allowed under the Booker-supported amendment. The so-called "consumer protections" purpose (and the reason it was backed by Big Pharma) had nothing to do with Big Pharma's altruistic concern for American consumers and everything to do with imposing restrictions which would increase the prices. Finally, the fact that neither amendment passed does not erase the fact that the Booker-supported amendment was favored by Big Pharma.

Charter schools are garbage. Having them abide by the same mindless testing requirements as public schools doesn't solve the problem. Having laws prohibiting them from discriminating on the basis of race (or even disability) etc. doesn't stop the real world discrimination that occurs. Kids whose parents are too involved in survival to go through the application process are left behind. Kids whose parents can't afford transportation are left behind. Kids who are originally allowed in despite ED classifications are drummed out on performance grounds soon after. They turn into enclaves where parents who prioritize education can hide their kids from the real world schools which are getting destroyed in the name of "school competitiveness." NO PROGRESSIVE SUPPORTS CHARTER SCHOOLS. ANYONE who bought into "Waiting for Superman" was BADLY played.

The fact that you cannot distinguish between Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama on one side of the "progressive" label and Lyndon Johnson on the other (and you notable omit Bill Clinton from the discussion) tells me that your definition of "progressive" includes anyone who brings progress in ANY area, even if they bring regression in others.

[moda253]

125. Sorry he is giving cover to a traitor.

He does not get a pass. Not saying he has to be drawn and quartered but he needs to know we don't acce;t that.

[pnwmom]

129. Not at all. He's said we need to get to the bottom of this and specifically

added that he would be open to pulling the clearance, if circumstances warrant.

That isn't giving Kushner a pass.

[moda253]

130. Sorry he said what he said and it came off as giving cover

Time for our side to be strong and ruthless. NO more mealy mouthed bullshit.

I like the guy but it's time to stop trying to be diplomatic with these people.

[Demsrule86]

139. We have no power to impeach anyone...so Booker is right in some ways...it can't happen until the GOP

wants to go along. Even winning the House is not enough because there is no point in impeachment unless you can convict in the
Senate. I have heard Sen.Bernie Sanders say exactly the same thing.

[Demsrule86]

149. No he is not...and I question your motivation for saying such a thing.

[TheDebbieDee]

131. Booker is being pre-emptively smeared in preparation

Of the 2020... The TROLLS are still at work...

[NurseJackie]

150. Nailed it. You are correct.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

134. +1000

If we apply a "purity" test to eliminate just about every potential contender between now and 2020, there may not be anybody left to run against Trump in 2020 (and he should be the easiest GOP target ever in 2020). There is NO "perfect" Democrat just like there is NO "perfect" politician. EVERY SINGLE politician will say or do something that disappoints somebody out there in voter land. As a citizen and voter, we need to weigh the good with the bad and make the choice about what we are willing to live with and vote for the candidate whom will do the most good and least bad for the country because, otherwise, we are going to keep losing to Republican candidates whom, by their very nature, will always do more bad things than good things and lots of things that run totally counter to the progressive agenda.

[L. Coyote]

138. People are thrashing Senator Booker BECAUSE he's a strong progressive.

This is part of Trump's War Room (Obstruction Task Force) strategy, attack the players on the opposition team.

You can always tell what is really going on by a twitter search to see who is pushing a story.

[Gothmog]

153. Booker is a great senator

[JCanete]

155. It should be pointed out, that the calculations are based not on identifying progressive versus

conservative bills, but whether or not a politician votes with those being lumped in as progressives and against those being lumped in as conservatives, in these circumstances.

This isn't in itself a statement about Booker. I don't know how that impacts the totals, and it seems like the most progressive dems are still at the top of the list, but if for instance, you crafted very moderate, even right leaning, legislation, which you got most democrats to vote for, and only a handful of republicans to vote for while the rest demonstrated their willingness to be the party of NO, you would be counted as voting progressively, while a standout who refused to vote for it because he or she thought the bill was a conservative piece of shit, would have the vote counted against that person for doing so.

[pnwmom]

156. All you have to do is look at the other information on the site

to see the particular votes they based the assessment on.

[JCanete]

158. how do I see the specific votes that were included? I see the breakdown of categories, but not

anything specific.

[pnwmom]

159. First you click on the general category of the issue,

in the top left hand corner.

Then the Senators names are listed with an overall score.

Then click on the Senators NAME, and a new page will open up with the Senator's votes on that topic.

[JCanete]

161. thanks!

[JCanete]

162. After looking at the specific votes of those, like Sanders, who occasionally breaks with the

Democratic party, I stand by my assessment, that this should not be claiming what it is claiming, that these votes necessarily represent voting more progressive or less progressive. It should simply state "this is how often these Senators vote on party lines in opposition to the GOP party line."

Any time you get 14 republicans to join in on a bill(to pull one example I looked at among many), that is bipartisan legislation. That is almost certainly reaching way across the aisle. Is it statesmanship? Maybe, but that's an entirely different claim.

[tallahasseedem]

165. He is fine staying in the Senate...

WAY TOO much baggage to go any farther than that. Those of us that reside in New Jersey understand exactly what will happen if he tries to run for President. We. Will. Lose.

[pnwmom]

172. You're entitled to your opinion, but many people in NJ disagree with you. n/t

[tallahasseedem]

174. It's not an opinion when you know what baggage will come out.

It will make John Edwards' deals seem small by comparison.

[whathehell]

176. That probably depends on your definition of "progressive".