Sanders’ Socialism Speech: America Is For All Of Us, Not Just Wealthy

“I don’t believe in some foreign “ism”, but I believe deeply in American idealism.”
– Senator Bernie Sanders

Sen. Bernie Sanders billed his talk Thursday at Georgetown University as a speech on “democratic socialism,” but it was immediately clear that what Sanders was really talking about were not the ideologies of a Cold War adversary but deeply American traditions of fairness that have been under attack by ideologues brandishing American flags.

Sanders anchored his speech as building on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1944 “Second Bill of Rights” address. “Real freedom must include economic security.” he said. “That was Roosevelt’s vision 70 years ago. It is my vision today. It is a vision that we have not yet achieved. It is time that we did.”

Continue reading

Here It Comes

Trump says “you’re going to have to strongly consider” shutting down mosques in the US.

Update – now the Republicans only Christian refugees should be allowed into the US. This is beyond disgusting, it is getting dangerous.

Ted Cruz said in South Carolina last night: “There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror. If there were a group of radical Christians pledging to murder anyone who had a different religious view than they we would have a different national security situation.” Jeb Bush said on CNN that the government should focus on helping “Christians that are being slaughtered.”

Republican Debate – Strange Days

I can’t get this out of my head since watching that very strange Republican debate…

Strange days have found us
Strange days have tracked us down
They’re going to destroy
Our casual joys
We shall go on playing
Or find a new town


Strange eyes fill strange rooms
Voices will signal their tired end
The hostess is grinning
Her guests sleep from sinning
Hear me talk of sin
And you know this is it


Strange days have found us
And through their strange hours
We linger alone
Bodies confused
Memories misused
As we run from the day
To a strange night of stone

What Do Candidates Propose To Boost Stagnant Economy?

Thursday’s bad news: Third-quarter GDP lands with thud: just 1.5 percent growth. That is down from 3.9 percent growth the previous quarter. The economy appears to be slowing, partly because of the drag effect of our trade deficit and partly because of the drag on the economy due to austerity policies (federal spending cuts that take money out of the economy).

In the presidential campaign Republican candidates are proposing even more austerity as a solution to the lackadaisical recovery, combined with tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of Wall Street and the giant corporations. Democrats, on the other hand are proposing infrastructure investment and a number of other positive solutions.

Continue reading

Clinton vs Sanders vs O’Malley On Fixing Banking

How do we fix Wall Street, a.k.a. “the banks”? How do the candidates compare? This question came up in the first Democratic debate and there has been lots of online commentary on this since.

The first place to look, of course, is CAF’s Candidate Scorecard. “The Candidate Scorecard measures the positions of Democratic candidates for president against the Populism 2015 platform endorsed by organizations representing 2 million Americans.” On Wall Street – specifically, making “Wall Street serve the real economy” – the Candidate Scorecard rates the candidates as follows:
● Bernie Sanders: 100%
● Martin O’Malley: 100%
● Hillary Clinton: 63%

Note that Clinton’s 63 percent rating is primarily based on not having a position on a financial transaction tax – “Has yet to take a position, though has used rhetoric against high frequency traders who game the system” – as well as opposing reinstating some form of a Glass-Steagall Act and a lack of specific proposals related to the categories “Break Up Big Banks” and “Affordable Banking.”

Continue reading

The Dem Debate Was Good For The Country. Let’s Have More Of Them

In contrast to the Republican clown shows they call debates, last Tuesday’s Democratic presidential debate was serious and focused on policy. It let the public know that there are still adults at work trying to help deal with the country’s real problems. It helped the country move forward.

Tuesday’s debate gave the public a positive, optimistic presentation of the Democratic Party and its progressive message and how this gives hope for a positive direction for the country. For those worried about the debates helping one candidate or another one, polls tell us the debate lowered the “unfavorable ratings” of both Clinton and Sanders.

But the Democratic Party leadership still seems to want to try to limit the Democratic candidates from public exposure. Last Tuesday’s debate was on a pay TV channel (my cable/internet/phone monopoly rent-seeking bill is closing in on $200+ a month) – not a very aware move for a party that supposedly wants to represent and get votes from low-income Americans – and still 15 million Americans tuned in. Even with that audience, this viewer-suppression strategy worked; that’s almost 10 million fewer than the first Republican debate.

While Republicans chose a Republican-right TV channel with Republican-friendly moderators, the Democratic debate was on a Republican-lite channel with semi-hostile moderators. (“Will you say anything to get elected?” “You honeymooned in the Soviet Union.” “The current top prosecutor in Baltimore, also a Democrat, blames your zero tolerance policies for sowing the seeds of unrest.”)

The next debate will take place November 14 – a weekend evening that many suspect was chosen so younger members of the potential audience will be out on dates, out at the clubs, at movies, and so on. (At least it will be on a broadcast network so people can tune in without paying.) The one after that, December 19, is also on a weekend evening, but on top of that it is also on the last Christmas shopping weekend. The one after that is on a Sunday night.

Not everyone pays attention to these things so far before an election. But those who do can see this for what it is. One candidate has a big lead early on, the other has low name recognition. It looks like people at the top are helping the leading candidate “sit on” that lead and “run out the clock.” Some also think that the same people do not want the other candidate’s “message” to be heard widely because it threatens entrenched interests.

What’s in it for those helping rig this primary process? Washington politics now runs on exchanges of promises – jobs, favors, and the like. We don’t know if or what the chair of the Democratic National Committee was promised to protect Clinton’s lead and keep the public from hearing Sanders’ message. If this is what happened, it might show Clinton to be just the kind of savvy D.C. power-politics player who really can get things done. Maybe the country needs someone like that right now. Maybe, maybe not. Or maybe it is an unfortunate sign that a Clinton administration will be another pay-to-play corruption operation, people inside doing favors for the powerful. Maybe the public is sick of this kind of corruption.

The first debate was great for the country, the party – and Clinton. So how about we stop the nonsense and schedule plenty of debates, in prime time on weekdays, and let the country know that there is something available besides Trump and obstruction.


This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary and/or for the Progress Breakfast.

The First Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate Had Adults On The Stage

The first Democratic debate showed the country what it is like to have adults on a stage. It doesn’t matter who “won.” The candidates showed they all are concerned about governing the country and proposing actual policies that will help actual people have better lives. And they showed that we have a serious and lively Democratic primary race in front of us. The country will be the winner.

In contrast to the entertaining Republican cage fight clown show racist, anti-government insult fest “debates”, the first Democratic debate was almost entirely a serious debate on issues and policies, by serious people with serious policy proposals, who all did very well. It was a debate for people who actually care about governing the country and making regular people’s lives better. It was a debate that would make Americans feel better about the future of their country.

Finally, A Democratic Debate

The Democrats finally held their first presidential candidate debate Tuesday. It seems the party has tried to avoid having any debates. (At this point in the 2008 cycle there had already been a dozen or so.) Tuesday being the day after a three-day weekend for many people, they decided to risk it. This debate showed just how big a strategic mistake this thinking was for Hillary Clinton and for the party’s ability to take their case to the public in November of 2016.

Hopefully this will convince the party’s leadership to expand the debate schedule. The Democrats all did well, and this debate showed that the party has a good and convincing message to deliver to voters. The party needs to have more public debates – on weeknights in prime time – both for the Presidential race and for Democratic “down ticket” candidates.

The Candidates

The candidates in the debate (click the name for the campaign website) were:
Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders
Martin O’Malley
Lincoln Chaffee
Jim Webb

For a comparison of the policy positions of these candidates please visit CAF’s Candidate Scorecard The Candidate Scorecard measures the positions of Democratic candidates for president against the Populism 2015 platform endorsed by organizations representing 2 million Americans.

The Debate

The debate will be analyzed over time; things will become more clear. The public will weigh in. But here are some quick impressions:

● There were lots of “establishment” cheap shots by moderators at Sanders (and a few at Clinton) on guns, “socialism” (oh, scary) and immigration. But these gave Sanders and Clinton a chance to respond and give good answers. It backfired.

● Clinton gave a lot of rehearsed, obviously focus-group-tested answers done very, very skillfully. Again and again she talked about “comprehensive plans” to imply that Sanders does not have the ability to get things done. She talked about being the “first woman president” to appeal to the female demographic, saying she can “find common ground” because polls show that voters want politicians who will “compromise.” It was a perfection of “politics” as we have come to know it, for better or worse. These are not bad things; it might still be what it takes to win elections in the U.S. and this is important. This “kind of person you want to have a beer with” approach might still be how you get votes, but Clinton also did well when she was forced to move away from this style.
● There were still too many “zingers,” like “I know how to find common ground and I know how to stand my ground.” Some of the prepared zingers were really great, such as “They [Republicans] don’t mind having big government to interfere with a woman’s right to choose and to try to take down Planned Parenthood, they’re fine with big government when it comes to that, and I’m sick of it.”
● Clinton’s attack on Sanders over guns failed, and gave him an opportunity to give a good response. Clinton won’t attack Sanders again.
● Bernie Sanders came across very, very well. He showed he is experienced, showed the public he is “presidential” and introduced himself to a lot of new people, depending on how many people watched. He is now introduced to many people who have not heard of him or heard his message. Sanders also had a few prepared phrases, like, “Every other major country on earth has … ” (health care for all, family leave, maternity leave, etc.) and “we are an international embarrassment.” He also said variations on “the Secretary is right” a number of times.
● Sanders repeatedly called for a political revolution, asking millions of people to take on “the billionaire class” to change America. Will he get enough millions?
● O’Malley was very good on most policies, but was rather rehearsed and did not appear quite ready to be on this national stage. As Van Jones said later on CNN, “He did not come across as commander-in-chief.” Clinton and Sanders did.
● Chaffee and Webb possibly wrote themselves out of the race. They both showed themselves to be serious people with very good resumes, but not candidates who are ready to be in a Democratic party race at this time. And Webb was channeling Rand Paul.
● Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley gave great answers on “Black Lives Matter.”
● Biggest applause line: Sanders, in support of Clinton, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about the damn emails.” “Enough of the emails.”

One last thing. Joe Biden doesn’t have an opening to enter the primaries now.

Democrats Are A Progressive Party Now

These candidates understand that winning in Democratic primaries means they have to spell out solid progressive policy proposals that actually help solve the country’s problems. Progressives are entirely driving the debate on a range of issues now.

This is because time has shown that a progressive approach to solving the problems of the country will work – and conservative or “centrist” (almost conservative) policies have hurt regular people and the country while driving inequality. The public has also realized that the old-style “Marlboro Man” politics of image has not worked for regular people. It is now apparent that “economic democracy” is the way an economy and a country can work.

Note (again): The website Populist Majority collects polling results showing that the public backs progressive solutions to the country’s problems, often by large majorities. The website Candidate Scorecard rates candidate according to the Populism 2015 platform.


This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary and/or for the Progress Breakfast.

Wait. Back Up. Sanders Only Has 650,000 Donors?

The other day it was announced with great fanfare that Bernie Sanders has received more than 1 million contributions from around 650,000 people. (Some have contributed more than once.)

But wait a minute, that really is not a large number in a country of almost 320 million people.

Let’s Do Some Math

Sanders is polling at somewhere around 26% among Democrats nationally. Barack Obama received 65.9 million votes in 2012. 26% of this is around 17 million. So there should be around 17 million current Bernie supporters. 650,000 is only 3.8% of that 17 million. This means that only about 3.8% of (according to current polls) possible current Bernie supporters have donated to his campaign.

Repeat: only 3.8% of what the polls tell us are current Bernie Sanders supporters have donated to his campaign.

Since Hillary Clinton has fewer donors but polls show support from 43.5% of Democrats, obviously the percentage of supporters donating to her campaign is going to be astronomically lower than Bernie’s 3.8%. I don’t want to do the math.

Get With It, People

Get with it, people. How do you think Democrats are going to win against the corporate-billionaire conservative machine, if only a few of us are donating to candidates? Seriously, if our advantage in numbers is going to override the Republican corporate-billionaire-financed financial advantage, we all have to pitch in.

If you support Bernie, send $20 today. Or more.

If you support Hillary Clinton, send $20 today. Or more.

if you support Martin O’Malley, send $20 today. Or more.

You really do have a responsibility to do this.

Not Just Candidates

And it isn’t just candidates you should be donating to. Republicans have a huge infrastructure of conservative support organizations, largely funded by corporations and billionaires. These are the outfits that spew out right-wing propaganda 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 400 days a year. How MANY times have you had to listen to things like, “Taxes take money out of the economy,” “Corporations always do things better than government,” and the rest of their anti-government, anti-democracy crap? How often do you hear a response? Hardly ever — and the reason is that YOU are not donating money to progressive organizations.

(I’m a Sr. Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future. But really, there are a number of great progressive organizations you should be supporting and I am sure that people can name several in the commerts.)

Democracy doesn’t have an advertising budget — it’s up to you. Donate, donate, donate.

Can Biden Run For President With TPP Around His Neck?

Vice President Joe Biden is considering a run for president. But Biden is currently working behind the scenes to push the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which most (if not all) core Democratic-aligned groups will likely oppose. Can Biden run for president as a Democrat after pushing TPP on us?

While TPP is being negotiated in secret, some parts of it have leaked. This limited information indicates that TPP is another “NAFTA-style” corporate-dominated agreement, designed to elevate corporations above government, limit the ability of citizens to make laws and regulations that protect them from corporate harms and scams, and to force wages down so a few executives and “investors” can pocket the wage differential.

Autos And Parts, For Example

One (only one) example of the “NAFTA-style” damage that TPP might do is a provision that actually weakens the limited protections NAFTA granted to auto and parts manufacturers.

Under NAFTA, auto companies and parts suppliers in countries in the agreement were given a level of tariff-free status through “content requirements.” But, according to leaks, in TPP the U.S. is actually pushing for lowered content requirements for cars and auto parts. (I explained the details in “TPP Terms Are Even Worse For U.S. Than NAFTA?“) This means China can get that business through Japan, which will force layoffs of workers and closures of factories. This is just one example of how TPP is actually even worse for American (and Canadian and Mexican) workers than NAFTA was.

Celeste Drake of the AFL-CIO explains further, in “Do U.S. Workers Really Have to Rely on Canadian and Mexican Negotiators to Look Out for Our Jobs?“:

Last month, Canadian and Mexican officials did the math and said no deal! They objected to these low standards, with Mexico’s Minister of the Economy explaining, “What you can accuse me of” is advocating for “the interests of my country.”

Why aren’t the United States’ own negotiators doing the same? If the reported deal is accurate, it would wipe out jobs throughout the U.S. supply chain. Even with a far higher regional value content rule, U.S. jobs are still at risk to other TPP countries, including Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam. But the lower the regional value content required by the TPP, the more auto sector jobs U.S. workers stand to lose.

Another example (one of many) of TPP’s probable damage is Nike vs New Balance. Nike pioneered outsourcing, now making its shoes in ultra-low-wage countries like Vietnam. Meanwhile New Balance is still trying to make some of its shoes in the U.S. TPP will lower the tariff on shoes brought in from Vietnam, rewarding Nike for outsourcing, and killing off New Balance’s ability to make shoes in the U.S., forcing layoffs and factory closures.

Biden Active In Pushing TPP

Biden does not just happen to be in an administration that is pushing TPP; he is working hard to push TPP himself.

For example, Biden met with Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in New York Tuesday to encourage him to help wrap up TPP this week. Japan Times has the story, in “Abe, Biden agree to work together to conclude TPP talks possibly this week“:

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden agreed Tuesday that the two countries will cooperate to conclude talks on a Pacific free trade initiative this week, both governments said.

Biden and Abe agreed that their negotiating teams for the Trans-Pacific Partnership would work closely together “with the goal of resolving the limited number of outstanding issues at the upcoming ministers meeting in Atlanta,” according to the White House.

… A Japanese official who attended the meeting quoted Biden as saying that the 12 countries engaged in TPP talks should strike a deal on this opportunity.

Biden Lining Up With Republicans, Wall Street And Corporate America Against Democrats, Labor And Progressives

TPP is still secret, and until the agreement is public the opposition is unable to organize — which is the point of the secrecy. But we know from leaks that TPP is likely to draw at least the same opposition as Fast Track did. This is a summary of which groups were on which side of Fast Track:

Some of the groups that lined up in favor of Fast Track and are almost certain to support TPP: (This is the side Joe Biden is standing on.)

● Republicans in the House and Senate.
● Wall Street.
● Giant multinational corporations.
● Billionaires and CEOs.
● The Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and other corporate lobbying organizations representing giant corporations against the rest of us.
● Right-wing “free market” outfits like Cato Institute (formerly named the Koch Foundation).

There was a large coalition organized against Fast Track and likely to oppose TPP (and Biden):
● Most Democrats in the House and Senate.
● All of organized labor — every labor union in the US opposed Fast Track and are likely to oppose TPP – and Biden.
● Almost every identifiable progressive-aligned organization, including:
● Human rights groups, and anti-slavery/trafficking activists,
● Environmental groups,
● LGBT groups,
● Faith groups,
● Consumer groups,
● Food-safety groups, and many, many others aligned with causes progressives, labor and public-interest groups feel are important.

All of these groups will actively oppose Biden if he runs for President with TPP around his neck.

Can Biden Run As A Democrat After Pushing TPP?

There are some things that a candidate in the Democratic primaries just can’t do. A Democrat can’t be for cutting Social Security or Medicare when “the base” wants candidates who are in favor of expanding it. A Democrat can’t be in favor of cutting taxes for the billionaires and corporations.

A Democrat can’t be in favor of doing things that hurt the environment and increase the threat of climate change, such as building the Keystone Pipeline.

Those are some of the third rails for the kind of Democrats who are active, informed and vote in primaries. But in the next year – assuming TPP is even half as bad for 99 percent of us that leaks have indicated it is – TPP will be the third rail of all third rails. The one thing certain to kill the chances of being nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate is not being out there on the front lines fighting tooth and nail to stop TPP. Because of this, Joe Biden is not a Democrat who can run for president in 2016 and win the nomination.


This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary and/or for the Progress Breakfast.

Jeb! Sticks Foot In It — Again

Today’s dog-bites-man story is that Jeb! Bush said something really stupid. Again.

Jeb! says Pope Francis should keep his climate views to himself because he’s not a scientist. HuffPo: “Jeb: Pope Shouldn’t Discuss Climate Change Because He’s ‘Not A Scientist'”:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said he disagrees with Pope Francis’ call to fight climate change and thinks the pope should not delve into the issue because he “is not a scientist.”

“He’s not a scientist, he’s a religious leader,” Bush said, according to a video posted by the Democratic opposition research group American Bridge.

But the Pope actually is a scientist. He is a chemical engineer with a Master’s degree from the University of Buenos Aires.

I’m Not A Scientist


Last year it seemed that every Republican in the country was saying “I’m not a scientist,” when asked about climate change. Obviously this deflection phrase was cooked up by well-paid strategists using well-funded focus groups, all likely paid for by the oil and coal companies.

Coral Davenport, writing at the NY Times’ Political Memo, in “Why Republicans Keep Telling Everyone They’re Not Scientists”:

For now, “I’m not a scientist” is what one party adviser calls “a temporary Band-Aid” — a way to avoid being called a climate change denier but also to sidestep a dilemma. The reality of campaigning is that a politician who acknowledges that burning coal and oil contributes to global warming must offer a solution, which most policy experts say should be taxing or regulating carbon pollution and increasing government spending on alternative energy. But those ideas are anathema to influential conservative donors like the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch and the advocacy group they support, Americans for Prosperity.

“I’m Not A Scientist” by “PsychoSuperMom“:


But Wait, There’s More!

Just in time for the Pope’s visit Jeb! Bush penned a Tuesday op-ed for Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal titled: “How I’ll Slash the Regulation Tax: As president, I’ll repeal the coal ash rule, the clean water rule, net neutrality, and much more.”


As president, I will repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rule extending federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act over millions of acres of private land, its new regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Power Plan, and its new and costly coal-ash standards for power plants. I will also work to repeal the so-called net-neutrality rule forced on the Federal Communications Commission by the White House and the Department of Education’s “gainful employment” rule that punishes for-profit colleges. That’s for starters.

Why did Bush write this to appear just before the Pope arrived in the US? Seriously, what did he think the Pope was about to say to the country?

The Pope, speaking to Congress:

Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life.

[. . .] The right use of natural resources, the proper application of technology and the harnessing of the spirit of enterprise are essential elements of an economy which seeks to be modern, inclusive and sustainable.

Jeb says the Pope should shut up because he isn’t a scientist. He uses the stock phrase without checking if the Pope might actually be a scientist. He sets up the Pope’s appeal to stop worshiping money, bring scammers and polluters under control and elevate people by proposing to unleash money and corporations on the people.

Turns out that ‘W’ was “the smart one.” Jeb! puts the “clown” in “Republican clown show.”


This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary and/or for the Progress Breakfast.