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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
June 27, 2015
The Third Way Clinton Machine unleashes McCaskill Shill to call Sanders a Socialist....................
Claire McCaskill's comments about Sanders came after polls showed Bernie making big gains on Hillary Clinton. According to a new CNN poll, Clinton now only holds an 8-point edge over Sanders (43% for Clinton to 35% for Sanders). The Hill called this a "statistical tie".
Google "Bud Meyers Why Corporate Democrats and the Media Fear Bernie Sanders" for the whole story.
Third Way Shill Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill ATTACKS Bernie Sanders
The Third Way Clinton Machine unleashes McCaskill Shill to call Sanders a Socialist....................
Claire McCaskill's comments about Sanders came after polls showed Bernie making big gains on Hillary Clinton. According to a new CNN poll, Clinton now only holds an 8-point edge over Sanders (43% for Clinton to 35% for Sanders). The Hill called this a "statistical tie".
Google "Bud Meyers Why Corporate Democrats and the Media Fear Bernie Sanders" for the whole story.
June 25, 2015
The Clown Car has now become the Clown Bus.........
Mitt Romney is moving quickly to reassemble his national political network, calling former aides, donors and other supporters over the weekend and on Monday in a concerted push to signal his seriousness about possibly launching a 2016 presidential campaign. Romney’s message, as he told one senior Republican, was that he “almost certainly will” make what would be his third bid for the White House. His aggressive outreach came as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — Romney’s 2012 vice presidential running mate and the newly installed chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee — announced Monday that he would not seek the presidency in 2016. Romney’s activity indicates that his declaration of interest Friday to a group of 30 donors in New York was more than the release of a trial balloon. Instead, it was the start of a deliberate effort by the 2012 nominee to carve out space for himself in an emerging 2016 field also likely to include former Florida governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
Romney has worked the phones over the past few days, calling an array of key allies to discuss his potential 2016 campaign. Among them was Ryan, whom Romney phoned over the weekend to inform him personally of his plans to probably run. Ryan was encouraging, people with knowledge of the calls said. Other Republicans with whom Romney spoke recently include Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Rob Portman (Ohio), former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Hewlett-Packard chief executive Meg Whitman, former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown, former Missouri senator Jim Talent and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah).
In the conversations, Romney said he is intent on running to the right of Bush, who also is working vigorously to court donors and other party establishment figures for a 2016 bid. Romney has tried to assure conservatives that he shares their views on immigration and tax policy — and that should he enter the race, he will not forsake party orthodoxy. On New Year’s Eve, Romney welcomed Laura Ingraham, the firebrand conservative and nationally syndicated talk-radio host, to his ski home in Deer Valley, Utah. Romney served a light lunch to Ingraham and her family as they spent more than an hour discussing politics and policy, according to sources familiar with the meeting.
“He was relaxed, reflective and was interested in hearing my thoughts on the American working class,” Ingraham said in an e-mail Monday. “He was fully engaged and up to speed on everything happening on [the] domestic and international front. To me, it didn’t seem like he was content to be just a passive player in American politics.” Romney’s undertaking to re-engage and pursue anew the GOP’s leading financial and political players began Friday, when he told a private gathering of donors, “I want to be president.” He also told them that his wife, Ann, was “very encouraging” of another campaign.
cont'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-moves-to-reassemble-campaign-apparatus-for-2016/2015/01/12/d968592e-9a88-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html
LOL! - Romney: I’m ‘ALMOST CERTAINLY’ Running
HEEEEEEEEEEEEERE COMES MITT!..........AGAIN!.... 
One Romney adviser, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, said, “Mitt’s a very restless character. He is not the type to retire happily, to read books on the beach. .?.?. He believes he has something to offer the country and the only way he can do that is by running for president again.”
The Clown Car has now become the Clown Bus.........
Mitt Romney is moving quickly to reassemble his national political network, calling former aides, donors and other supporters over the weekend and on Monday in a concerted push to signal his seriousness about possibly launching a 2016 presidential campaign. Romney’s message, as he told one senior Republican, was that he “almost certainly will” make what would be his third bid for the White House. His aggressive outreach came as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — Romney’s 2012 vice presidential running mate and the newly installed chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee — announced Monday that he would not seek the presidency in 2016. Romney’s activity indicates that his declaration of interest Friday to a group of 30 donors in New York was more than the release of a trial balloon. Instead, it was the start of a deliberate effort by the 2012 nominee to carve out space for himself in an emerging 2016 field also likely to include former Florida governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
Romney has worked the phones over the past few days, calling an array of key allies to discuss his potential 2016 campaign. Among them was Ryan, whom Romney phoned over the weekend to inform him personally of his plans to probably run. Ryan was encouraging, people with knowledge of the calls said. Other Republicans with whom Romney spoke recently include Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Rob Portman (Ohio), former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Hewlett-Packard chief executive Meg Whitman, former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown, former Missouri senator Jim Talent and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah).
In the conversations, Romney said he is intent on running to the right of Bush, who also is working vigorously to court donors and other party establishment figures for a 2016 bid. Romney has tried to assure conservatives that he shares their views on immigration and tax policy — and that should he enter the race, he will not forsake party orthodoxy. On New Year’s Eve, Romney welcomed Laura Ingraham, the firebrand conservative and nationally syndicated talk-radio host, to his ski home in Deer Valley, Utah. Romney served a light lunch to Ingraham and her family as they spent more than an hour discussing politics and policy, according to sources familiar with the meeting.
“He was relaxed, reflective and was interested in hearing my thoughts on the American working class,” Ingraham said in an e-mail Monday. “He was fully engaged and up to speed on everything happening on [the] domestic and international front. To me, it didn’t seem like he was content to be just a passive player in American politics.” Romney’s undertaking to re-engage and pursue anew the GOP’s leading financial and political players began Friday, when he told a private gathering of donors, “I want to be president.” He also told them that his wife, Ann, was “very encouraging” of another campaign.
cont'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-moves-to-reassemble-campaign-apparatus-for-2016/2015/01/12/d968592e-9a88-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html
June 25, 2015
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/24/1396157/-Bernie-Sanders-To-Appear-At-Netroots-Nation-Clinton-has-Scheduling-Conflict
Bernie Sanders To Appear At NETROOTS NATION, Clinton has Scheduling Conflict.
Clinton to miss convention of liberal activists, bloggersST. LOUIS (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton is not expected to appear at Netroots Nation, an annual convention of liberal activists and bloggers who are often courted by Democratic presidential candidates. Organizers of the event said Wednesday that Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley have confirmed to appear at the July 16-19 conference in Phoenix and will appear on stage separately during a Saturday morning town hall-style event that will include questions from the audience.
http://www.newspressnow.com/news/politics/ap/article_a48d7f46-90b6-5335-86b9-f4c13e62f7d2.html
http://www.newspressnow.com/news/politics/ap/article_a48d7f46-90b6-5335-86b9-f4c13e62f7d2.html
Clinton's campaign cited a scheduling conflict for her absence, saying the Democratic front-runner is already scheduled to speak at an Iowa Democratic Party event in Cedar Rapids on July 17 and a Democratic dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas, where her husband once served as governor, the following night. Sanders and O'Malley are also scheduled to speak at the Iowa dinner. About 3,000 activists are planning to attend the convention, which will also feature Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Many liberals had hoped she would challenge Clinton for the nomination. The weekend includes panel discussions among progressive activists and labor leaders and features several Democratic members of Congress.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/24/1396157/-Bernie-Sanders-To-Appear-At-Netroots-Nation-Clinton-has-Scheduling-Conflict
June 24, 2015
Hillary Rodham Clinton is facing backlash for saying that “all lives matter” in an African-American church in Missouri on Tuesday, offending some who feel that she is missing the point of the “black lives matter” mantra. Mrs. Clinton’s remarks at Christ the King United Church of Christ in Florissant, Mo. — only a few miles north of Ferguson, where a black teenager was shot by a white police officer last August — came during a broader discussion of civil rights in America. She was talking about how a disproportionate number of young people of color are out of school and out of work and, explaining that everyone needs a “chance and a champion,” she recalled how her mother was abandoned as a teenager and went on to work as a maid. “What kept you going?” Mrs. Clinton remembered asking her mother. “Her answer was very simple. Kindness along the way from someone who believed she mattered. All lives matter.” The remark caused a stir on social media, with some African-Americans on Twitter suggesting that Mrs. Clinton had lost their votes.
Pousbaé @yoauntielikeit
Hillary Clinton, in a Black church, just said "All lives matter." Fam...
3:56 PM - 23 Jun 2015
The Rev. Renita Lamkin, who was in the audience at the event, told NPR that Mrs. Clinton’s comment did not go unnoticed. “That blew a lot of support that she may have been able to engender here,” she said. The phrase “black lives matter” has become a rallying cry in the last year for demonstrators amid a spate of episodes around the country, including the 18-year-old Michael Brown’s death in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, where white police officers have been accused of using excessive force against black suspects. Judith Butler, a professor at University of California, Berkley, summed up the frustration with the use of “all lives matter” in The Times in January.
cont'
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/24/hillary-clintons-all-lives-matter-remark-stirs-backlash/
Hillary Clinton’s ‘All Lives Matter’ Remark Stirs BACKLASH
Hillary Rodham Clinton is facing backlash for saying that “all lives matter” in an African-American church in Missouri on Tuesday, offending some who feel that she is missing the point of the “black lives matter” mantra. Mrs. Clinton’s remarks at Christ the King United Church of Christ in Florissant, Mo. — only a few miles north of Ferguson, where a black teenager was shot by a white police officer last August — came during a broader discussion of civil rights in America. She was talking about how a disproportionate number of young people of color are out of school and out of work and, explaining that everyone needs a “chance and a champion,” she recalled how her mother was abandoned as a teenager and went on to work as a maid. “What kept you going?” Mrs. Clinton remembered asking her mother. “Her answer was very simple. Kindness along the way from someone who believed she mattered. All lives matter.” The remark caused a stir on social media, with some African-Americans on Twitter suggesting that Mrs. Clinton had lost their votes.
Pousbaé @yoauntielikeit
Hillary Clinton, in a Black church, just said "All lives matter." Fam...
3:56 PM - 23 Jun 2015
The Rev. Renita Lamkin, who was in the audience at the event, told NPR that Mrs. Clinton’s comment did not go unnoticed. “That blew a lot of support that she may have been able to engender here,” she said. The phrase “black lives matter” has become a rallying cry in the last year for demonstrators amid a spate of episodes around the country, including the 18-year-old Michael Brown’s death in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, where white police officers have been accused of using excessive force against black suspects. Judith Butler, a professor at University of California, Berkley, summed up the frustration with the use of “all lives matter” in The Times in January.
“When some people rejoin with ‘All Lives Matter’ they misunderstand the problem, but not because their message is untrue,” she wrote. “It is true that all lives matter, but it is equally true that not all lives are understood to matter which is precisely why it is most important to name the lives that have not mattered, and are struggling to matter in the way they deserve.”
cont'
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/24/hillary-clintons-all-lives-matter-remark-stirs-backlash/
June 24, 2015
IOKIYAR..................CARLDEMORT!.........
Perhaps the most absurd example is the Super PAC supporting Carly Fiorina. According to a recent report by the Wall Street Journal's Reid Epstein, despite not being allowed to coordinate with or have any official involvement with Fiorina's campaign, the people behind this Super PAC decided to name it "Carly for America." Now, the FEC has no problem whatsoever with a Super PAC being formed purely to benefit Fiorina's campaign. By now, Super PACs that exist for no other reason but to air ads helping a single candidate are de rigueur. But putting Fiorina's own first name in the Super PAC's name was a bridge too far for the FEC, which called on the group to find a new moniker.
They found one: Conservative, Authentic, Responsive Leadership for You and for America. Or, in acronym form: CARLY For America. It's an attention-getting stunt, and it's not yet clear if the absurd new name will pass the FEC's muster. But, weirdly enough, if CARLY for America gets its way, it'll actually end up being more transparent than other groups out there.
That's because most Super PACs tend to have very generic, patriotic-sounding names that make them difficult to tell apart from each other. Think something like "Americans for Conservative Freedom." And the name of a Super PAC, which has to be read on air during its TV advertisements, is all most voters ever learn about it. As a result, in 2012, we had the absurd spectacle of one Super PAC called "Restore Our Future" running ads attacking Newt Gingrich, and another called "Winning Our Future" airing ads attacking Mitt Romney. Political sophisticates knew that the first group was staffed with Romney's former aides, and the second with Gingrich's. But all TV viewers saw were their generic names, without a clear idea of which Super PAC was unofficially affiliated with which candidate.
So why won't the FEC let Carly for America keep "Carly" in its name and let Carly's team own its ads? The problem is that all Super PACs are supposed to be independent — which means the FEC doesn't have a legal way to distinguish "Super PACs formed with the candidate's tacit approval and staffed by his or her recent close aides" from "Super PACs formed by genuinely outside operators." That means that if the FEC let this "independent" Super PAC put "Carly" in its name, it would have to let anyone start a Super PAC with "Carly" in the name — even people who don't genuinely support Fiorina. That, they think, is asking for trouble. Such a group could use Fiorina's name to fundraise, and voters could mistakenly think her responsible for its tactics. For instance, a loose cannon — or supporters of a rival candidate — could start a "Carly Conservative" Super PAC and air some really controversial, offensive ads that are truly intended to drive voters away from Fiorina. Then there are the growing "scam PACs" that may "exist mostly to pad the pockets of the consultants who run them," as Politico's Ken Vogel wrote.
cont'
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/24/8838687/super-pacs-2016-bush-rubio
A PRO–Carly Fiorina SuperPAC: Ridiculously CHANGES NAME - "Carly For America" to "CARLY For America"
IOKIYAR..................CARLDEMORT!.........
Perhaps the most absurd example is the Super PAC supporting Carly Fiorina. According to a recent report by the Wall Street Journal's Reid Epstein, despite not being allowed to coordinate with or have any official involvement with Fiorina's campaign, the people behind this Super PAC decided to name it "Carly for America." Now, the FEC has no problem whatsoever with a Super PAC being formed purely to benefit Fiorina's campaign. By now, Super PACs that exist for no other reason but to air ads helping a single candidate are de rigueur. But putting Fiorina's own first name in the Super PAC's name was a bridge too far for the FEC, which called on the group to find a new moniker.
They found one: Conservative, Authentic, Responsive Leadership for You and for America. Or, in acronym form: CARLY For America. It's an attention-getting stunt, and it's not yet clear if the absurd new name will pass the FEC's muster. But, weirdly enough, if CARLY for America gets its way, it'll actually end up being more transparent than other groups out there.
That's because most Super PACs tend to have very generic, patriotic-sounding names that make them difficult to tell apart from each other. Think something like "Americans for Conservative Freedom." And the name of a Super PAC, which has to be read on air during its TV advertisements, is all most voters ever learn about it. As a result, in 2012, we had the absurd spectacle of one Super PAC called "Restore Our Future" running ads attacking Newt Gingrich, and another called "Winning Our Future" airing ads attacking Mitt Romney. Political sophisticates knew that the first group was staffed with Romney's former aides, and the second with Gingrich's. But all TV viewers saw were their generic names, without a clear idea of which Super PAC was unofficially affiliated with which candidate.
So why won't the FEC let Carly for America keep "Carly" in its name and let Carly's team own its ads? The problem is that all Super PACs are supposed to be independent — which means the FEC doesn't have a legal way to distinguish "Super PACs formed with the candidate's tacit approval and staffed by his or her recent close aides" from "Super PACs formed by genuinely outside operators." That means that if the FEC let this "independent" Super PAC put "Carly" in its name, it would have to let anyone start a Super PAC with "Carly" in the name — even people who don't genuinely support Fiorina. That, they think, is asking for trouble. Such a group could use Fiorina's name to fundraise, and voters could mistakenly think her responsible for its tactics. For instance, a loose cannon — or supporters of a rival candidate — could start a "Carly Conservative" Super PAC and air some really controversial, offensive ads that are truly intended to drive voters away from Fiorina. Then there are the growing "scam PACs" that may "exist mostly to pad the pockets of the consultants who run them," as Politico's Ken Vogel wrote.
cont'
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/24/8838687/super-pacs-2016-bush-rubio
June 23, 2015
Share With Friends........
Bernie Sanders On THE CONFEDERATE FLAG
Share With Friends........
Sen. Sanders talks about the fact that even after the bloody killings in South Carolina, the Confederate flag is still used at the state house.
June 22, 2015
Share the BERN with Friends.........
Six days ago I wrote a post called "BERNIE is on FIRE on Facebook" where I stated that Bernie's Facebook activity is 2 times the amount of Hillary's.
A good 400-500 likes per hour vs Hillary's 200-300 likes per hour.
That was six days ago.
Want to know what the comparisson is now using the same web app Quintly?
Bernie's now getting 1,448 likes per hour. Hillary is getting 122.
In just 6 short days he now has OVER TEN TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FACEBOOK ACTIVITY when compared to Hillary. Going from Hillary beating him, to Bernie getting two times, and now over ten times?
That's 35,703 per day vs Hillary's 2,920.
And this is just in six days. (2 weeks if you go back to when Hillary was leading using this metric)
At this rate... Bernie will catch up to Hillary in total likes.... in just under 10 more days.
Bernie is a full blown social media inferno. Just look at this chart of activity over the last hour:
Look at all that light blue! (Bernie is the light blue)
That combined with the humongous crowds that he has been getting just shows you how much the Democratic voters are hungry for this guy.
We want real change.
We want the truth.
We want someone who is fighting for us.
Bernie is reawakening the same hopes that brought Obama to power.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/22/1395641/-BERNIE-Now-a-Facebook-Inferno
Bernie Sanders- Now A FACEBOOK INFERNO
Share the BERN with Friends.........
Six days ago I wrote a post called "BERNIE is on FIRE on Facebook" where I stated that Bernie's Facebook activity is 2 times the amount of Hillary's.
A good 400-500 likes per hour vs Hillary's 200-300 likes per hour.
That was six days ago.
Want to know what the comparisson is now using the same web app Quintly?
Bernie's now getting 1,448 likes per hour. Hillary is getting 122.
In just 6 short days he now has OVER TEN TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FACEBOOK ACTIVITY when compared to Hillary. Going from Hillary beating him, to Bernie getting two times, and now over ten times?
That's 35,703 per day vs Hillary's 2,920.
And this is just in six days. (2 weeks if you go back to when Hillary was leading using this metric)
At this rate... Bernie will catch up to Hillary in total likes.... in just under 10 more days.
Bernie is a full blown social media inferno. Just look at this chart of activity over the last hour:
Look at all that light blue! (Bernie is the light blue)
That combined with the humongous crowds that he has been getting just shows you how much the Democratic voters are hungry for this guy.
We want real change.
We want the truth.
We want someone who is fighting for us.
Bernie is reawakening the same hopes that brought Obama to power.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/22/1395641/-BERNIE-Now-a-Facebook-Inferno
June 22, 2015
With the U.S. Senate expected to take up Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority, on Tuesday, the stakes are high for progressives who oppose pro-corporate trade deals. Last week, the House passed a Fast Track bill that—unlike the Senate version passed in May—was decoupled from Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) legislation. To move Fast Track to President Barack Obama's desk, thereby enabling him to ram through Congress mammoth international pacts like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Senate must pass its own standalone Fast Track bill. With votes scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, anti-Fast Trackers are being urged to call their senators, while activists are also organized the #SenatorDontComeHome Twitter storm for Monday afternoon at 1 pm EDT, in which they told lawmakers to block Fast Track or risk alienating constituents. The Senate is scheduled to take a cloture vote on that legislation on Tuesday, requiring 60 votes to advance the bill for debate. If that vote is successful, the subsequent vote, to actually pass Fast Track, would require a simple majority and is expected to come Wednesday. At the Campaign for America's Future blog, Dave Johnson gives details about more than a dozen Stop Fast Track rallies happening across the country on Monday and Tuesday, targeting 14 Democratic senators who voted for Fast Track before it became a standalone bill.
~snip~
Meanwhile, The Hill focused on Sen. Elizabeth Warren's role in the Fast Track fight.
Schroeder reports that Warren and her aides worked behind the scenes with House lawmakers in an effort to stymie the legislation. Now that the bill is back before the Senate, according to The Hill, Fast Track opponents "believe Warren, along with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), could help them stall the trade package — or even kill it." Because as the AFL-CIO noted last week, "Fast Track has gotten even worse since the House got its hands on it."
In a blog post about the "zombie legislation" on Friday, the AFL-CIO's Celeste Drake explained further:
cont'
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/06/22/constituents-senators-reject-fast-track-or-dont-come-home
Constituents to Senators: Reject Fast Track, or DON'T COME HOME
Senate expected to take up trade legislation on Tuesday, but labor federation warns: 'Fast Track has gotten even worse since the House got its hands on it.'
With the U.S. Senate expected to take up Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority, on Tuesday, the stakes are high for progressives who oppose pro-corporate trade deals. Last week, the House passed a Fast Track bill that—unlike the Senate version passed in May—was decoupled from Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) legislation. To move Fast Track to President Barack Obama's desk, thereby enabling him to ram through Congress mammoth international pacts like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Senate must pass its own standalone Fast Track bill. With votes scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, anti-Fast Trackers are being urged to call their senators, while activists are also organized the #SenatorDontComeHome Twitter storm for Monday afternoon at 1 pm EDT, in which they told lawmakers to block Fast Track or risk alienating constituents. The Senate is scheduled to take a cloture vote on that legislation on Tuesday, requiring 60 votes to advance the bill for debate. If that vote is successful, the subsequent vote, to actually pass Fast Track, would require a simple majority and is expected to come Wednesday. At the Campaign for America's Future blog, Dave Johnson gives details about more than a dozen Stop Fast Track rallies happening across the country on Monday and Tuesday, targeting 14 Democratic senators who voted for Fast Track before it became a standalone bill.
~snip~
Meanwhile, The Hill focused on Sen. Elizabeth Warren's role in the Fast Track fight.
"While the trade war has waged this month in the House, Sen. Warren (D-Mass.) has taken a less public view," wrote journalist Peter Schroeder. "She’s been a key player in the background, but publicly has been more outspoken on other issues." He continued, "Now that the fight is returning to her home turf, her allies say she has an opportunity to take a final stand on the issue. They also argue she has a unique power to galvanize the Democratic base to their cause."
Schroeder reports that Warren and her aides worked behind the scenes with House lawmakers in an effort to stymie the legislation. Now that the bill is back before the Senate, according to The Hill, Fast Track opponents "believe Warren, along with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), could help them stall the trade package — or even kill it." Because as the AFL-CIO noted last week, "Fast Track has gotten even worse since the House got its hands on it."
In a blog post about the "zombie legislation" on Friday, the AFL-CIO's Celeste Drake explained further:
House Republican leadership loaded it up with sops to gain votes from its right wing, including provisions designed to prevent trade deals from addressing climate change and anti-immigrant provisions that could undermine attempts to create a level playing field for all workers. In a convoluted attempt to rush Fast Track into law without sending it back to the Senate, the House added these provisions to a separate customs bill. The House also weakened the trade enforcement provisions in the bill, which will cost us jobs and wages. No senator who cares about justice for immigrants, the environment or creating a level playing field for American manufacturing (or all three) should trust House promises that these issues will be fixed.
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/Fast-Track-Where-Are-We-Now-Take-II
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/Fast-Track-Where-Are-We-Now-Take-II
"We’re tired, but we can’t rest in our efforts to do what is right for working families," Drake wrote. "When global corporations write the rules, families lose. Continue the fight! Let’s kill the Fast Track zombie that keeps rising from the dead once and for all."
cont'
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/06/22/constituents-senators-reject-fast-track-or-dont-come-home
June 22, 2015
Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, who has been drawing big crowds, is beefing up his Iowa campaign staff. The campaign announced Monday that it has hired a state director, a caucus director and some regional staff. The five hires include three who had been working for the now-suspended effort in the state to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., into a candidacy. Just last week, the Sanders campaign said it had hired Blaire Lawton, the man who led the Warren effort here. On Monday, the campaign said Robert Becker, who ran former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s Iowa campaign in 2008, had been hired to be Sanders’ state director. In addition to other campaigns, Becker worked for former Sen. Bill Bradley in Iowa when he ran for president in 2000.
“From day one we vowed to assemble a top-notch campaign team in Iowa, and we continue to demonstrate our commitment to doing just that,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ national campaign director, in a statement on Monday. “Iowa’s caucus process is tailor-made for Bernie Sanders’ grass roots style of campaigning and we will continue to build a first-in-the-nation organization to capitalize on that strength.”
The campaign has said it plans to have about two dozen staffers on the ground sometime this summer. Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, has been drawing large crowds not only in Iowa but in other states, too. But he has trailed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Iowa in public opinion polls. And Clinton also has had an organizational head start. The Clinton campaign has had more than two dozen field staffers on the ground for weeks now.
cont'
http://thegazette.com/subject/news/government/sanders-bolsters-iowa-campaign-staff-20150622
Bernie Sanders BOLSTERS Iowa Campaign Staff
Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, who has been drawing big crowds, is beefing up his Iowa campaign staff. The campaign announced Monday that it has hired a state director, a caucus director and some regional staff. The five hires include three who had been working for the now-suspended effort in the state to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., into a candidacy. Just last week, the Sanders campaign said it had hired Blaire Lawton, the man who led the Warren effort here. On Monday, the campaign said Robert Becker, who ran former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s Iowa campaign in 2008, had been hired to be Sanders’ state director. In addition to other campaigns, Becker worked for former Sen. Bill Bradley in Iowa when he ran for president in 2000.
“From day one we vowed to assemble a top-notch campaign team in Iowa, and we continue to demonstrate our commitment to doing just that,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ national campaign director, in a statement on Monday. “Iowa’s caucus process is tailor-made for Bernie Sanders’ grass roots style of campaigning and we will continue to build a first-in-the-nation organization to capitalize on that strength.”
The campaign has said it plans to have about two dozen staffers on the ground sometime this summer. Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, has been drawing large crowds not only in Iowa but in other states, too. But he has trailed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Iowa in public opinion polls. And Clinton also has had an organizational head start. The Clinton campaign has had more than two dozen field staffers on the ground for weeks now.
cont'
http://thegazette.com/subject/news/government/sanders-bolsters-iowa-campaign-staff-20150622
June 22, 2015
Background-State of Play
Some of this I wrote a couple of days ago. This comes down to 14 Senate Democrats who voted, in the last fast track vote, with Republicans, to destroy middle class jobs. In May, 13 Democratic Senators voted for cloture on the original fast track bill. Had four of these 13 Democratic Senators voted with the majority of the Democrats who voted against cloture, fast track would have failed in the Senate and it most likely would have died right there:
On the final passage of the Senate bill, Ben Cardin (MD) voted for passage, though he had voted no on the cloture vote. Then, the bill went to the House. And, as we know, essentially, it initially stopped there because the House voted overwhelmingly against the Trade Assistance Adjustment (which I call “burial insurance”). The House, then, passed fast track as a separate piece of legislation, stripped of the TAA.
That requires that the bill go back to the Senate for a vote on fast track. The gamesmenship on this is simple. The president and the party he has united behind him–THE REPUBLICAN PARTY–want the Senate Democrats to vote first on fast track and, then vote on the TAA and, then, believe that the House–which rejected the TAA 126-302–will, then, pass the TAA bill. Trust me, the president and his Republican allies say. This will happen--because John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are trustworthy and control their caucuses. Now, I have large tracts of Florida swampland for any of the Democrats who, in fact, proceed under the belief that they can trust these two gents (and I use “gents” quite loosely), or, on this matter, the president. And, indeed, some Democrats are quite leery of this approach.
Which brings me to:
Hillary Clinton
For all those people who buy the new, improved, “progressive” Clinton, this is a simple vote: are you with big corporations or are you with workers/labor/environmentalists?
Candidate Clinton said just recently:
On Thursday night, in an interview with Jon Ralston, Hillary Clinton declared that she would “probably” vote against giving Obama fast-track trade authority if she were still in the Senate, depending on the status of a companion measure assisting workers who lose jobs because of trade deals. But the pressure is still on Clinton to make it more clear where she stands.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/clintons-cover-both-sides-on-trade-deals-119189.html?hp=r2_4
She isn’t in the Senate. But, she has more leverage than Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley to influence the 14 Democrats. She has it in her power to shift enough votes to kill fast track. She served with the 14. Of the 14, ten have explicitly endorsed her candidacy as of April: Cardin, Cantwell, Feinstein, Heitkamp, Nelson, Kaine, McCaskill, Murray, Shaheen and Warner.
This is simple: today, she needs to call on those 10, who support her candidacy for president, to vote against cloture as a clear sign of what she “probably” would have done in the Senate.
It’s a clear vote.
It’s a clear choice.
~snip~
Even if you don't hail from one of the states represented by one of the 14, pick one or more and call; you can still make the point that, as a Democrat who donates money and volunteers, this vote will determine what you will do in 2016 in terms of contributing and assisting Democrats.
Michael Bennet (CO)
202-224-5852
303-455-7600
Ben Cardin (MD)
(202) 224-4524
(410) 962-4436
Maria Cantwell (WA)
(202) 224-3441
(206) 220-6400
Tom Carper (DE)
(202) 224-2441
(302) 573-6291
Chris Coons (DE)
(202) 224-5042
(302) 573-6345
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
(202) 224-3841
(415) 393-0707
Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
(202) 224-2043
(701) 232-8030
Bill Nelson (FL)
202-224-5274
305-536-5999
Tim Kaine (VA)
(202) 224-4024
(804) 771-2221
Claire McCaskill (MO)
(202) 224-6154
(314) 367-1364
Patty Murray (WA)
(202) 224-2621
(206) 553-5545
Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
(202) 224-2841
(603) 647-7500
Mark Warner (VA)
202-224-2023
804-775-2314
Ron Wyden (OR)
(202) 224-5244
(503) 326-7525
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/22/1395253/-Fast-Track-24-Hrs-To-Go-Clinton-s-Moment-Of-Truth-A-Hard-Concept-Numbers-For-YOU-To-Call
Fast Track 24 Hrs To Go, CLINTON'S MOMENT OF TRUTH (A Hard Concept) & Numbers For YOU To Call
Tomorrow, the Senate will take a new vote on fast track. It will be a cloture vote on whether to proceed to consider a "clean" fast track bill, given the (positive-result) clusterfuck that took place in the House. Though one can imagine scenarios under which fast track can be defeated even if the cloture vote wins, it's a lot harder.
So, this is a moment of truth. I'll break it down into three parts.
Background-State of Play
Some of this I wrote a couple of days ago. This comes down to 14 Senate Democrats who voted, in the last fast track vote, with Republicans, to destroy middle class jobs. In May, 13 Democratic Senators voted for cloture on the original fast track bill. Had four of these 13 Democratic Senators voted with the majority of the Democrats who voted against cloture, fast track would have failed in the Senate and it most likely would have died right there:
On the final passage of the Senate bill, Ben Cardin (MD) voted for passage, though he had voted no on the cloture vote. Then, the bill went to the House. And, as we know, essentially, it initially stopped there because the House voted overwhelmingly against the Trade Assistance Adjustment (which I call “burial insurance”). The House, then, passed fast track as a separate piece of legislation, stripped of the TAA.
That requires that the bill go back to the Senate for a vote on fast track. The gamesmenship on this is simple. The president and the party he has united behind him–THE REPUBLICAN PARTY–want the Senate Democrats to vote first on fast track and, then vote on the TAA and, then, believe that the House–which rejected the TAA 126-302–will, then, pass the TAA bill. Trust me, the president and his Republican allies say. This will happen--because John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are trustworthy and control their caucuses. Now, I have large tracts of Florida swampland for any of the Democrats who, in fact, proceed under the belief that they can trust these two gents (and I use “gents” quite loosely), or, on this matter, the president. And, indeed, some Democrats are quite leery of this approach.
Which brings me to:
Hillary Clinton
For all those people who buy the new, improved, “progressive” Clinton, this is a simple vote: are you with big corporations or are you with workers/labor/environmentalists?
Candidate Clinton said just recently:
On Thursday night, in an interview with Jon Ralston, Hillary Clinton declared that she would “probably” vote against giving Obama fast-track trade authority if she were still in the Senate, depending on the status of a companion measure assisting workers who lose jobs because of trade deals. But the pressure is still on Clinton to make it more clear where she stands.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/clintons-cover-both-sides-on-trade-deals-119189.html?hp=r2_4
She isn’t in the Senate. But, she has more leverage than Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley to influence the 14 Democrats. She has it in her power to shift enough votes to kill fast track. She served with the 14. Of the 14, ten have explicitly endorsed her candidacy as of April: Cardin, Cantwell, Feinstein, Heitkamp, Nelson, Kaine, McCaskill, Murray, Shaheen and Warner.
This is simple: today, she needs to call on those 10, who support her candidacy for president, to vote against cloture as a clear sign of what she “probably” would have done in the Senate.
It’s a clear vote.
It’s a clear choice.
~snip~
Even if you don't hail from one of the states represented by one of the 14, pick one or more and call; you can still make the point that, as a Democrat who donates money and volunteers, this vote will determine what you will do in 2016 in terms of contributing and assisting Democrats.
Michael Bennet (CO)
202-224-5852
303-455-7600
Ben Cardin (MD)
(202) 224-4524
(410) 962-4436
Maria Cantwell (WA)
(202) 224-3441
(206) 220-6400
Tom Carper (DE)
(202) 224-2441
(302) 573-6291
Chris Coons (DE)
(202) 224-5042
(302) 573-6345
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
(202) 224-3841
(415) 393-0707
Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
(202) 224-2043
(701) 232-8030
Bill Nelson (FL)
202-224-5274
305-536-5999
Tim Kaine (VA)
(202) 224-4024
(804) 771-2221
Claire McCaskill (MO)
(202) 224-6154
(314) 367-1364
Patty Murray (WA)
(202) 224-2621
(206) 553-5545
Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
(202) 224-2841
(603) 647-7500
Mark Warner (VA)
202-224-2023
804-775-2314
Ron Wyden (OR)
(202) 224-5244
(503) 326-7525
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/22/1395253/-Fast-Track-24-Hrs-To-Go-Clinton-s-Moment-Of-Truth-A-Hard-Concept-Numbers-For-YOU-To-Call
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
