Sources say @SpeakerRyan also felt this is about his own integrity…not wanting to be seen as "being coy""misleading"
— Kelly O'Donnell (@KellyO) April 12, 2016
Ryan sources say Ryan wanted to do the right thing https://t.co/GRv0KXhuOr
— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) April 12, 2016
The Zombie-Eyed Granny Starver is not going away. Jim Newell, at Slate — “Paul Ryan Still Refuses to Be President. But Who’s Asking?”…
… Though the industry of pundit lapdogs who fawn over Ryan as the sexiest thing in right-of-center wonkery since the Laffer curve will buy his noble self-effacement about how it would simply be improper to accept the job without having run, there’s certainly another factor that suggests he really means it: Unlike the speaker’s election, he believes he would lose the presidential election.
It is very difficult for members of Ryan’s fan club to understand that outside of elite Republican donor circles, the pages of Beltway publications, and the green rooms of Sunday morning chat shows, Ryan is not that popular of a politician. Before Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, Ryan—as the author of budgets that slashed entitlements and discretionary spending programs—was the poster boy for Democratic opposition to the obstructionist right. This was just a few years ago…
Ryan is no more popular with Democrats now, of course, but he’s also not as popular with the Republican base now that he’s a member of the supposedly do-nothing, amnesty-loving congressional leadership. Those brewing negative feelings among the base would almost certainly explode if Ryan, having competed in no primaries, were to swoop in at the convention and “steal” the nomination from either Trump or Cruz. Ryan may not be the epitome of serious policy thinking that his elite adorers imagine him to be—he’s basically the personification of elite Republican donors’ interests—but he does have a considerably sounder political mind than they do, and that’s why he wants nothing to do with this hot mess.
2012 in Paul Ryan's home county. Why is he the GOP fantasy candidate again? pic.twitter.com/Jzm5kfwHVe
— Bob Schooley (@Rschooley) April 12, 2016
Jon Chait, in NYMag, on “Paul Ryan’s Magical-Realism Campaign”:
Paul Ryan’s shadow campaign for the presidency is well under way, and the visible portion peeking above the surface — message videos and gravitas-conferring overseas trips — conceals a larger whisper campaign submerged beneath the surface. If Donald Trump fails to win a majority of pledged delegates on the first ballot, and if Ted Cruz fails to organize a majority on a subsequent ballot, a disorderly and panicked party would almost automatically turn to its recognized leader as the candidate. Alternatively, should either Trump or Cruz win the nomination, Republicans running down-ballot will need a less toxic brand. In which case, Ryan will assume his role as de facto party leader, supplying a friendlier-sounding message for Republicans in blue and purple states…
If Paul Ryan was really being Shermanesque, Atlanta would be on fire right now
— Ben Jacobs (@Bencjacobs) April 12, 2016
Chait points at the NYTimes‘ centrist mooning over Ryan’s “Mirage Candidacy”…
… Mr. Ryan is creating a personality and policy alternative to run alongside the presidential effort — one that provides a foundation to rebuild if Republicans splinter and lose in the fall. “He is running a parallel policy campaign,” said Senator Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina.
He is shaping an agenda that he plans to roll out right before the convention, a supplement of sorts to the official party platform. He gives regular speeches on politics and policy — particularly on poverty and economic issues — then backs them up in the news media.
It is not a move without risks. His policy positions on immigration and trade, which have contributed to his mirage candidacy, are in great tension with the views of many Republican primary voters…“There is no question that Ryan is operating in a very ambitious way,” said Peter Wehner, a former director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives under President George W. Bush who has known Mr. Ryan for two decades. “He is trying to set forth a path for the party with ideas and policy proposals and principles,” he said. “That is unusual for a speaker in an election year, but Ryan himself is a very different person, and this is the product of this very unusual presidential year.”…
Paul Ryan thinks he’s Eisenhower.
He’s not.
— Dana Houle (@DanaHoule) April 12, 2016
Josh Barro, at Business Insider, is considerably more cynical:
… Take a moment and imagine that this garbage fire of an election is over. It’s January 2017, President Hillary Clinton is being inaugurated, and House Speaker Paul Ryan has become by far the most powerful figure in the Republican Party simply by continuing to sit where he is while all his rivals set themselves on fire.
By early next year, Ryan could be the only prominent establishment Republican whose reputation has not been destroyed through loss to Trump, supplication to Trump, defeat in a Senate race because Donald Trump is losing a landslide at the top of the ticket, or some other similarly horrible fate.
Alternatively, if Ted Cruz manages to grab the Republican nomination, Ryan would start 2017 in an even stronger position. Cruz would also lose badly to Clinton, the other non-Trump candidates for the nomination would still be humiliated, Senate Republicans would be pointing fingers at each other about who lost the majority, and Ryan wouldn’t need to compete with Cruz for the role of Republican standard-bearer after the election…
Apart from the ever-so-thinly-masked national ambitions of the Zombie-Eyed Granny Starver, there’s the GOP version of the Red Queen’s race: Every Very Serious Rethug needs to run as fast as he can just to stay in the same media headspace, because there’s always another claimjumper scheming to take his follow spot…
The American people should decide who chooses the #SCOTUS Justice to fill Scalia’s seat https://t.co/6MIsfkP06D pic.twitter.com/RcB275w8CP
— Reince Priebus (@Reince) April 11, 2016
catclub
Paul Waldman puts it as “Ryan is running for President in 2020.”
jl
Paul Ryan, the budget and fiscal fake wonk who hides the real effects of his tax plans with magic asterisks is afraid of being perceived as coy. That is funny. He is joking, right?
Edit: No matter how he feels now (and who knows, really?) I wonder if that will change as the GOP House caucus teabagger maniacs make his life as Speaker a living hell. I read that they just told him to go shove it on the budget. If he does want to run in 2020, he can’t have his Speakership blow up into a continuing fail show and rolling disaster, can he?
MattF
My guess is that, specifically, the Koch brothers are pushing for Ryan. Neither Cruz nor Trump is likely to follow their orders.
Turgidson
@catclub:
FSM help us all, but he could win in 2020 if there’s a timely recession or foreign policy crisis. Especially if he has the entire Village media simultaneously giving him fellatio the whole way. Which, against President Hillary Clinton, he probably would.
Grumpy Code Monkey
I don’t think a Cruz candidacy would b0rk the Senate badly enough that they’d lose a majority. A few seats, yeah, but it wouldn’t flip.
I could see a Trump candidacy causing enough damage to flip the Senate, which is why I’m hoping Trump regains his mojo.
And a hearty thppppttt to Priebus and anyone else who thinks “the American people” should decide who sits on SCOTUS. Ain’t what the Constitution says, Bubba, and Obama is still President.
On another forum, lo these many years ago, someone said we should have a referendum on the Iraq war. I pointed out that we already had, it was called the 2004 election, and over half the country validated the whole fucking mess.
IOW, elections have consequences. It was good enough for Bush, why isn’t it good enough for Obama?
Yes, that was a rhetorical question.
chopper
prince rebus, the american people did decide. we reelected obama, the guy who the constitution says nominates fucking federal judges. that’s one of the fucking goddamned reasons we reelected him, asshole.
Morzer
It seems someone has taught Paul Ryan a new word. While I am glad that the House Squeaker now knows how to pronounce “integrity”, I do wonder when he’s going to figure out what it means and retire from public life.
Kay
So, if that was your impression, you’re right.
I do think she should look at her staff, however. Can they not promote something positive about her? That’s part of their job, right? I was hoping they’d be sort of plugged into the campaign-industrial complex in some way that was beneficial :)
catclub
@Morzer: Integrity.
Reminds me of the bit in Paper Moon.
Dad (con man): ” I have scruples.”
Daughter (Tatum O’Neill): “If you have any scruples, I bet you stole them from somebody else!”
jl
@efgoldman:
” the opossum on his head:”
Has anyone ever thought about the poor possum (or rotating possums) on Trump’s head? Anyone ever think of calling animal welfare dept about it? I am growing concerned.
gene108
In other words, make stuff up.
qwerty42
I know that is going around, but it is hard for a Congressman to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate; by the time they chair an important committee, they have made enemies within their own party. And as Speaker, there are only “friends” and enemies. I think this is his only shot at it. Maybe he did not expect the collapse this year and wanted to wait it out. But the clock is ticking.
lamh36
I agree with this tweeter…
Here is the story from The Hill…
White House defends Garland from Sanders
Morzer
@Kay:
Josh Marshall had something to say in this area, which I think is timely:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/clinton-debate
Yes, Clinton’s staff seem somewhat inadequate in this area (and where have we seen that before?), but there’s only so much they can do when the candidate refuses to learn from her own past and keeps trying to squirm away from questions that should have reasonably straightforward, even formulaic answers to put the issue to bed. If she hasn’t figured this out against Bernie, you really do wonder what she’s going to come up with in the big game. Clinton seems to have learned nothing at all from her loss in 2008 and I find that an extremely worrying prospect if she is the nominee. Relying on the GOP to nominate an obviously repellent lunatic and save your bacon is not a situation you want to be in with so much on the line.
jl
@Morzer: I agree with what Josh Marshall wrote. But I do think HRC has shown more growth over the primary than Sanders has. His pitch works very well with a certain type or audience.. But if he had shown more willingness to explain his policies to a more conservative audience in the South, his campaign might be in better shape today, and he could do more than whine about the sequence of states in the primary election.
HRC’s responses do seem flat on these issues. The main reason I am not too worried about it is that I don’t think most voters will care much in a context against Cruz (who has a much more blatant Wall St Suger Daddy problem) or Trump.
Trollhattan
@qwerty42:
Right, and if recent history is an indication, the one-term president is the anomaly, not the rule. Ryan runs against Hills in 2020; Ryan ends career.
Is his district safe? I’d love to see him lose his seat (although not the way Cantor did being primaried by someone even worse).
lamh36
@jbendery
Obama’s income tax return is out. Occupation: I’m the mf’ing president ok
noticed Spouse’s ocupation: US First Lady!
Mahn, I’m gonna have to take a day off when PBO, MO, Mama Robinson and the WeeMichelles leave the white house
Trollhattan
@Morzer:
The transcripts are the real whitey[water] tape!
How many times have we been down this path?
Turgidson
@lamh36:
I agree that the WH shouldn’t have to defend Garland from an “ally” like Bernie. But I actually agree with Bernie that, if the GOP really does carry its blockade all the way through the election, they have to live with the consequences of that and let the next president nominate someone. And Hillary (and Bernie if he pulls off a miracle win) would nominate someone at least 15 years younger and probably more liberal than Garland. The GOP should have to sleep in the bed they made.
I’m torn, because that outcome would be outrageously unfair to Garland, who by all accounts is a stand-up guy and a good judge and would probably be a credit to the Court if he took his seat. But…the GOP should be made to pay as high a price as possible for their stunt. And that means Hillary nominates a 40 year old liberal firebrand to Scalia’s seat, IMO.
cleek
@Morzer:
bah. Cruz’s wife works for GS.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-dana-bash-presses-ted-cruzs-wife-hard-about-goldman-sachs-ties/
Morzer
@jl:
I would agree that both candidates are flawed, although I would say that Bernie has grown over the course of the campaign while Clinton seems to have stayed pretty much what she was from the start – something reflected in Bernie’s increased strength in the polls and stronger than expected performance with demographics that Clinton generally captured in 2008. I still assume that Clinton will ultimately be the nominee, but I increasingly think that we shall have chosen the weaker candidate largely because of an institutional advantage rather than their actual performance or talent as a politician. I don’t find much to celebrate in that circumstance and I feel nervous about November.
WarMunchkin
@Turgidson: Yeah, I’m also torn on this. I get why people think Bernie is attacking PBO, but I don’t quite see it like that either. If the world were magic, Republicans would look at a Democratic nominee pledging to nominate a left-of-left candidate, crap their pants looking at Trump’s poll numbers and immediately vote to confirm Garland.
I’m not saying Bernie is necessarily employing that strategy, just that I don’t view it as an egregious assault on the President.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
Ryan won’t get the nomination in 2020.
Cruz will out Jesus him and out Brown-bait him (especially if Clinton gets immigration reform passed).
Calouste
@Morzer: @jl:
That wasn’t written by Josh Marshall. The byline says John Judis. who is TPM’s resident Berniebro concern troll.
And why would Clinton need to release transcripts when none of the other candidates in the race has released a single full tax return? And of course of the candidates left, Sanders is probably the only one who hasn’t given a paid speech for a Wall Street firm.
jl
@Turgidson: That linked story had a headline that didn’t match the content very well. And I don’t think Obama is all that put out or disturbed that Sanders (and maybe HRC too? I haven’t kept up with her statements on the issue) is signaling that Garland might be the best deal they can get. Sanders said he is fully supporting the nomination as long as Obama is president.
Gin & Tonic
@qwerty42:
I know there are plenty of former US Reps who’ve become President, but I don’t think a *sitting* Congressman has ever been elected to the Presidency.
Morzer
@Trollhattan:
And what are Clinton’s unfavorables like? Yes, we’ve been down this path before – and Clinton is no better at dealing with these situations than she was when it began. Good politicians learn from their past – and Clinton apparently hasn’t. Retreating to a defensive crouch and talking about how unfair the world is doesn’t get it done. No-one forced her to give those speeches to Wall St, just as no-one forced her to give the impression that she was afraid to release the transcripts. Good politicians handle this stuff sensibly and move on. Obama dealt with the Jeremiah Wright nonsense by confronting it and handling it in a clear and convincing way – and that was potentially much worse than the transcripts situation. Why has Clinton not learned to play the game better, if she wants to be part of it?
Morzer
@Calouste:
She would release them because SMART POLITICIANS HANDLE DISTRACTIONS EARLY AND EFFECTIVELY AND STOP THEM FROM DEVELOPING INTO AN ISSUE.
That’s basic politics and a candidate who can’t handle it should think twice before running for office.
gwangung
Sorry, but I think the weaker candidate is the one who can’t produce a tax return, the one who keeps patronizing the South and the one who can’t articulate details of their signature issue.
Morzer
@efgoldman:
Bear in mind that Clinton starts with alarming unfavorable ratings and that Sanders has also been gentle with her compared to what the GOP will do. Don’t assume that her negatives are fully priced in – if anything, the lesson of this primary is that they are not, even among “friendly” audiences.
jl
@Morzer: It was a little unfair of me to say, or imply, that Sanders has not grown at all during the primary in any way. And in the past, I have been a Sanders mega-donor, with over a hundred bucks in his till (and he hasn’t listened to a word of my advice I send with the contributions, dammit! See? Sanders is a vile man, he doesn’t show gratitude to his mega-donors. Note contrast with Walker!).
What I meant was that I don’t think Sanders has grown at all, or much, in how he sells his policy program. I hear the same stump speech stuff over and over again. Not much attempt to explain his policies to audiences that are not automatically Bernie friendly.
I think he understands the issues well enough to do that. An example is his allusion to an FDR social insurance approach to funding college costs (Edit: or was it family leave policy?), as opposed to HRC’s more need-based welfare approach. And I think that idea has some merit, I see the contrast in a number of Sanders versus HRC domestic policy proposals. But why was it just an allusion in one debate? I think he should have devoted a section of his standard stumper, at least in the South, to clearly explaining a difference in approach. But Sanders stumps along, and IMHO, that may be the reason he will lose, unless he can really turn around upcoming elections in high population states, like NY and CA and pull upsets that are at least as big as in MI. I don’t think a chance that he will.
Edit: So, I do think HRC has shown more growth, or evolution, in her ability to explain her policies, if not stuff like speech transcripts, and I don’t think the latter is all that important in the general, at least against Cruz and Trump.
jon
@Morzer: I think the transcripts are Clinton’s usual “Give them enough rope” strategy in regard to her enemies promising the Moon is going to fall on her. Like the Benghazi, Whitewater, email, this-gate, that-gate, investment, Vince Foster’s mind-controlled self-assassination, and so many other scandals of epic proportions, she’s probably okay with this one sitting around in the minds of her opponents.
From my limited experience with work junkets and motivational speakers, my guess is that the transcripts follow the usual formula:
A. Welcome!
B. I’m honored to be here!
C. You guys are awesome and do great work!
D. You inspire me in my various great work!
E. Motivational example.
F. Inspirational anecdote.
G. Tale of perseverance.
H. How we can build a better future!
I. How our combined awesomeness can make a better future more awesome-er!
J. Thank you. Handshakes. Photos. Open bar (depending on venue.)
There might be something about how to take over the world, but I assume those people already knew that or they couldn’t afford her.
Micheline
@jl: Sanders supports Garland so long as Obama is president, but then he asks Obama to withdraw his nomination. I don’t know about you but it sounds like Sanders is contradicting himself.
Morzer
@gwangung:
*shrug* The brutal fact is that no Democrat is likely to be competitive in the South this time around. Sanders is releasing his tax forms and he at least knows what the key issues are.
None of this changes the fact that Clinton remains an incompetent politician and that we are worryingly dependent on the GOP nominating an even worse politician for November.
Morzer
@jon:
Clinton’s strategy, if one can call it that, has resulted in high negatives for her, even when she’s pretty clearly innocent of anything other than ongoing poor judgment. I don’t think it’s working too well.
John D
@Gin & Tonic: Um.
Senators are Congressmen, too, so we have to go all the way back to the distant shores of 2008 to find a sitting Congressman who was elected President.
Marc
@gwangung: Sanders being weak doesn’t logically preclude Clinton from being weak.
The republicans will bring up the transcripts and, outside of true believers, no one finds her current answers convincing. I’ve gone from thinking that they were just meaningless platitudes to thinking that they’re probably embarrassing. It’ll mean that we can’t use the “tools of the plutocrats” line against the republicans, which is a real loss because they actually are and she really isn’t.
I want my candidate to anticipate and deflect obvious lines of attack. And the single most depressing thing about the Clinton administration the first go around wasn’t deflecting the bogus scandals; it was the constant need to defend their stupid mistakes and things that actually did look bad.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Turgidson: Does Sanders think that PBO should withdraw the nomination if a Republican is elected? Because that’s the standard the narcissistic old fool has set. And Republicans are smart enough to see that.
Put me down with John Cole on this one
Morzer
@Micheline:
It’s reasonable to say “I will support the president’s nominee, but I would prefer him to nominate someone else”. It’s not contradictory, any more than it would be contradictory to say “I will support the Democratic nominee in November, but I would prefer Clinton to Bernie, or vice versa”.
Marc
If there is no action before the election – yes, I do expect that any new president (Clinton or Sanders) should have the right to appoint their own person to the court. That’s not inconsistent with working to get the current nominee a fair hearing, vote, and hopefully confirmation. Why is that a problem?
jl
@Micheline: Sanders said he will fully support Obama’s nominee as long as Obama offers it. But, Sanders said IF he is elected president, as president elect he will ask (politely, from all indications) that Obama withdraw the nomination so he can nominate a more progressive person. And Sanders has said that Obama has a Constitutional right and duty to nominate whoever Obama wants as long as he is president.
I think you have to stretch to find an outright contradiction.in that.
gwangung
@Morzer: Shrug. I think Sanders is even MORE incompetent. I point this out to challenge your statement that Clinton is the weaker candidate. And I certainly do not take as gospel that Democrats can’t be competitive in certain parts of the South (like VA and FL). They may not win in these areas, but not rising to the challenge there is incompetency of its own.
Chyron HR
Ladies and gentlemen, Morzer will be providing this thread’s designated BernieBro filibuster. Tipping is encouraged, but not per post for obvious reasons.
jl
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: The GOP is acting stupid and desperate, and Cole is in an overexcitable political mood. Political hacks can say all sorts of things. Whether anyone who pays attention to this sort of stuff will believe patent BS is another issue.
I hope Sanders responds to the GOP attempts to co-opt his stand on the nominee, and for once in quite awhile, I will not find his yelling and finger pointing annoying.
Morzer
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
John Cole is being childish. Bernie isn’t saying that it’s “his” pick at all. Given that he would be voting on the candidate, if the GOP ever does its job, I think Bernie (like Clinton) has every right to express an opinion and no amount of immature raging by the misguided changes that fact,
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Obama won each of those twice; VA has a Dem governor and two Dem Senators. North Carolina is a possibility, and with Trump, according to some polls, Georgia is in play.
Calouste
@Morzer:
Oh? That must be why Sanders released his tax returns the moment he announced his candidacy? And why he has not being making shit up every single time he has been asked about them?
Turgidson
@WarMunchkin:
That may yet happen – perhaps late in the summer after their convention brawl, if they look as doomed to lose the general as it would seem they will.
Whatever happens, I hope the Democratic party leaders – Obama, the nominee, the DNC, everyone – hammer home the point that we might already have Garland or someone younger and more liberal occupying Scalia’s old seat if we’d fucking retained the Senate in 2014.
I know midterms are usually tough on the party in year 6 of holding the presidency, but I still can’t believe we lost a few of those races. NC, CO, and Iowa in particular (Senator Joni Ernst? Seriously?). Keep those, and win one more of the races that was supposed to be close but wasn’t, and we still have a bare majority. The GOP would still be able to filibuster, but I think breaking that blockade would be a lot easier than the one they have erected from the majority.
Patricia Kayden
@catclub: And being crushed in defeat by incumbent Democratic President Hilary Clinton. Looking forward to those headlines in November 2020.
@gwangung: Agreed that Senator Sanders is the weaker Democratic candidate. But I am thankful to him for moving Secretary Clinton to the left on several issues, such as a $15 minimum wage hike for example.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
What does that look like?
Baud
He knows he’d be facing Baud!
jl
@jon: If HRC said anything of substance in her Wall St. speeches, I would be surprised and disappointed. If she is playing rope-a-dope with the issue, it will play out well. If she releases boilerplate after the hilarity of a Trump or Cruz (with is very special Wall St loans) trying to make an issue of it, it will make a great campaign shaggy dog story.
Morzer
@Chyron HR:
I do marvel at how the Clintonites insist on hotheatedly pushing benevolent neutrals into their opponent’s camp. Maybe you should rethink your strategy on that one.
Still, for the benefit of those who can read and think: I will say again that both candidates are flawed and I view November with considerable misgivings. I think Bernie would be the better candidate for the future of the party as a party, but I imagine Clinton will be the nominee.
jl
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I am sure it will involve pointing and yelling, and one way Sanders has ‘grown’ is showing up with sarcastic ad libs, so I hope he throws some of those in too.
Baud
@Patricia Kayden:
I thought she simply said she wouldn’t veto it if it passed Congress.
Citizen Alan
@Morzer:
My personal pet theory is that there’s nothing in the transcripts that would hurt her in the general and that the first time Drumpf demands she release them, she does so casually and there’s no there there. I imagine she doesn’t want to release them in the primary because there’s probably clips of her saying kind words about Lloyd Blankfein or some other awful human being who was the person who invited her and the BernieBros would hold it up as “proof” that she’s in too deep with Wall Street. Whereas after she’s nominated, there’s no way anyone can portray her as being as slavish to Wall Street as the GOoPer candidate. We’ll see, I guess.
jon
@Morzer: It’s more of a coping strategy than a devious trap, but she’d rather they attack her for what she hasn’t done than what she has done. She figures she’ll be attacked for being shrill when they run out of things to go after her, so she wants them to be exhausted so they can hear her whisper–with immense shrillness– “I beat you.”
The negatives aren’t her fault, by the way. If you were attacked for decades, you’d probably have an aura of deserving it, too. After all, why else would she be attacked? She has to be doing something wrong, no? When have the Republican Congressmen ever lied to us?
Morzer
@Calouste:
As I have said several times, I think both candidates are flawed. Clinton has fewer excuses on this, since she has gone through the primary process before, but that doesn’t let Bernie off the hook either.
lamh36
jl
@Morzer: The mean spirited and juvenile sniping in the primary is getting very tiresome. I watch the Democratic debates on The Young Turks, and their mean spirited and juvenile sniping at HRC is about as bad as the anti-Sanders bile here. So it kind of balances out and I don’t let it bother me.
MomSense
@lamh36:
My mom and I were watching part 1 of the Jackie Robinson documentary and when the President and First Lady were interviewed we were both smiling and misty eyed. My mom loves him and has a photo of him in her bedroom (like my grandma did with FDR) and she was really sentimental about his leaving office. She told me that he is her president in the sense that she has never felt a president encompassed the ideal for her before or will again.
Citizen Alan
@Morzer:
What?!? What the GOP has actually done within the last few months is grill her for eleven hours over a nonsense scandal on national TV! At this point, every single thing the GOP says about Hillary is automatically seen as suspect by everyone not already predisposed to hate her.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Agreed, how many people were in the audience for those speeches? anything remotely interesting would have leaked by now
I decided to check Nancy LeTourneau’s claim that one of the dread SPEECHES was on youtube, and damn me if it ain’t so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lKlJ3Ed4fQ
there’s also one she did for NASDAQ for those of you who care more than I do. Bon appetit.
jon
@Baud: Yep. She’d happily sign it. She just doesn’t want to expend all the energy to get it in an legislative environment where she sees it as not getting there. It’s almost as if a 50% increase to $12 is nothing.
Origuy
Ryan’s home district (WI-1) is considered a swing district, and there are two Democrats who have announced their candidacy, so he could lose in November.
Morzer
@jon:
I’d be more convinced by the theory if Clinton had actually coped with the attacks. Sure, they are often unfair, but simply retreating to a defensive crouch and looking evasive and paranoid hasn’t done much for Clinton over the years either. Still, here we all are and may it work out for the best.
Baud
@Origuy: Meh. We thought that in 2012. Doubt it’ll happen.
gwangung
@Morzer:
I think his ISSUES are the better ones for the future of the party; I just cannot agree that he’s the better PERSON for the party.
Turgidson
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I get that (which is why, while I agree with Bernie’s sentiment, I don’t think he should be staking that out as his position in public – a unified front and commitment to breaking their blockade on Garland should be the public stance), but given that they’re either going to nominate Trump, Tailgunner Ted, or a random establishment stooge who would have ripped the nomination away from not one, but TWO candidates who ran in every state and won millions of votes, I don’t think they have much of a chance to win the election, so the blockade is likely to blow up in their faces when Hillary becomes President-elect and potentially brings a Democratic majority back to the Senate. If they really are determined to carry this blockade through the election, they should pay the maximum price for their reckless bullshit when it fails.
I see the angles, and my preference would be for Garland to be summarily confirmed next week, as he deserves. But if the GOP sticks to their demented guns on this and lose the election, they should be punished. That would mean Garland withdrawing and Hillary nominating a strong liberal under the age of 50, 55 max, to that seat.
The Thin Black Duke
Not for nothing, but the GOP has been trying like hell to knock out Hillary for over twenty-five fucking years and she’s still standing. And considering how shaky Sanders has been looking lately, I’m afraid Bernie’s got a glass jaw.
Morzer
@efgoldman:
That’s Hereditary Life President Lord Dolfbro to you, sonny.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@Turgidson:
First of all, the NYT did a study and found him to be as liberal as Ginsberg (chart – scroll down).
Second if you appoint someone who is demonstrably to Ginsberg’s/Garland’s left what makes you think that person could get confirmed.
Calouste
@Patricia Kayden: So when is Sanders supposed to have moved Clinton to the left on the minimum wage issue?
gwangung
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: I was surprised at that. It gave the faint odor of Earl Warren to me….
Morzer
@gwangung:
We shall have to agree to disagree. Clinton, for me, is more likely to be a “progress stopper” (just to use the sort of NFL term that makes efgoldperson happy) on the issues and I think she will do little to win over new voters. Still, we shall see. Either way, the party desperately needs an influx of new talent at every level.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
Bernies favorables are because he’s an old angry white guy who seems like he knows what he’s talking about. He doesn’t. And more than that, wait until he starts having to explain how much all his pie in the sky will cost everyone, because as we all know, the electorate understands nuance and is basically hard wired to want to share the wealth, especially with “those people”
elftx
Ryan thinks his feet don’t stink and I’m beginning to think the same about Bernie.
Origuy
In happier news: Neil Gaiman has changed his mind and will adapt Good Omens for television. Why? Because Terry Pratchett asked him to.
jon
@Morzer: Looking paranoid? How is that different from looking like they’re actually out to get you? Because in her case, it’s fair to say that’s the reality.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I agree not much of a chance, but still too much of one.
That last part is where the work is, I think, whatever happens at the top. I think Feingold and Duckworth have small, but solid leads; NH and OH were dead heats last I looked; CO leans Dem; PA Dems seem to have trouble picking a candidate (apparently everybody hates Sestak, and I’ve never seen why. FL? I haven’t seen much polling, though I did chuckle heartily when Grayson asked me for money this weekend. I hope he bought my email from someone I like.
I don’t see Obama withdrawing Garland no matter who asks, but I guess McConnell will be able to stonewall right up to the opening of the new Senate.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@Patricia Kayden: if he’s so good at moving people, why hasn’t he moved his own home state (deep, deep, blue) to adopted a $15 an hour minimum wage.
Davebo
@Morzer:
He promised last night that it would happened today. Did I miss it?
Trollhattan
@Morzer:
I don’t view Hillary through the same lens as I do other politicians. They’re not fighting Hydra, she is. Nobody else I can name has for twenty-five years been confronted with an endless chain of “career-killing” crises and frankly, I’m sick of them. If she chooses to wave them off, I’m okay with that because for every Benghazi, there’s a son-of-Benghazi and son-of-son-of-Benghazi sitting on the shelf, ready for deployment.
As a candidate on the stump, she’s vastly better than in ’08.
Morzer
@jon:
The GOP have been out to get Obama from day one – but does he come across as defensive or paranoid?
Calouste
@Davebo: Bernie was busy today to flying with 10 or so family members to the Vatican and give a 10 minute speech. No news on whether the Sanders family vacation was paid for from the Sanders family fortune, that we have been told doesn’t exist, by a rich Sanders supporter, that we have been told he isn’t influenced by, or by a few thousand $27 dollar donations from the campaign fund.
Micheline
@jl: That’s the wrong tack because his statement gives the idea that GOP obstructionism is okay and we already know that Garland won’t be confirmed. Another thing it plays into the hands of GOP, in that their obstruction is normal. Instead Sanders should’ve said Garland is qualified and the Senate needs to do its job. He should’ve left it at that.
Mike J
@Calouste: Was it a campaign event? If not, the FEC frowns upon using those funds.
debbie
@Morzer:
I haven’t read everything here, so it may have already been said: Bill and Hillary have never been able to put anything behind them because they refuse to give an honest, unequivocal response. They’re so busy trying to outthink their opponents and not give them any ammunition that they, by not responding or by dancing around the question, end up giving their opponents even more ammunition. It’s been that way their entire political lives. They’re using the Cliff Notes version of 11-dimensional chess and it’s not working. Strategy needs to be thought out, not reflexive.
dmsilev
@Calouste: Estimates I saw was that chartering a plane of the sort Sanders needed to charter (a 767 or similar, since nothing smaller has the range to non-stop that flight) for a day is ~$300K, so about 11K of the $27 donations.
gwangung
@Morzer: Aha! Another point of agreement (about new talent)!
New voters are always welcome, of course, but I see that most of the new, motivated voters coming from the Latino and Asian American communities (where Clinton is OK in), and that other communities of color will be OK with her (there’s a real chance that Sanders may dampen enthusiasm in the black community).
Calouste
@Mike J: It was a scientific conference apparently, but from what I have read Sanders pretty much gave his stump speech.
Brachiator
@MomSense:
I’m finding it very interesting how often this sentiment is expressed, that people feel “this is my president,” and think about him, his family, and his administration with affection.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@Micheline:
Exactly. Sanders will never ever ever be a team player. He’s on team Bernie all.the.time. He’s the most temperamentally unsuitable candidate for president I think I’ve ever seen, except for maybe Ross Perot.
jl
@Micheline: GOP party hacks believe that they can gull people by trying to twist Sanders’ position into support for their BS. I don’t think they will be successful.
SiubhanDuinne
@lamh36:
Awwwww ❤️?❤️?❤️
dollared
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: Do you really believe that Bernie’s program will cost everyone too much? Or do you think American families, if it were properly explained, would support slightly higher taxes for free health care, and college tuition?
John D.
@debbie:
You are cordially invited to fuck right the fuck off.
That is a bullshit GOP talking point.
jl
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: thanks. I expect that they are all like that one.
Bobby Thomson
@Morzer: that was John Judis, not Josh Marshall.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@dollared:
Half the country thinks unemployment is up and the country is worse off since Obama got elected, and that it’s because he’s Muslim and that immigrants are the reason there’s no jobs. IOW, they’re idiots ripe to be demagogued. Sanders will lose 45 states once the bumper sticker attacks start sticking to him.
debbie
@John D.:
“It depends on what is, is.”
John D.
@debbie: So you pick *a* comment and extrapolate to every other comment?
Fine. Let us apply the standard to you.
“Debbie is a dishonest hack with absolutely no concept of ethics or statistics. Nothing she posts can be trusted.”
ETA: Fuck it. Why do I even bother? Off to the pie filter with you.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: Howard Dean waas on Brian Beutler’s podcast this week, and he said Bernie just doesn’t want to be in any party. There’s a Progressive Party in VT that (says Dean) gets about 10% of the vote, is an ideological fit for him, and he’s just not interested
Mike J
@Calouste: May 20 is the FEC filing date for expenses this week. We’ll see if he tries to slip it in. I can’t see how it is a legit campaign expense though.
Trollhattan
@the Conster, la Citoyenne:
NPR had on some 18-year old Colorado Skippy who’s a Republican, Cruz-loving delegate who was going on about how our country has gotten all off-track and we now need us some Ted. He was so head-thumpingly ill-informed but could form complete sentences and such. And there I was, talking back to the radio so who’s the moron now?
dollared
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: OK, it’s your fear speaking. That’s OK. After the last 40 years, I understand your fear. However, the rest of us would really like a country with a health care and education for all, at a lower price tag, because it would make for a stronger country and healthier famiies. And we wouldn’t be willing to misrepresent the cost of his proposals like you just did.
Chyron HR
@dollared:
I dunno, how about Bernie start being honest and run on a platform of “I will raise middle-class taxes by thousands of dollars but it’ll be better for everyone in the long run” instead of “I’ll tax Wall Street! That will pay for everything!” and then we’ll find out whether or not the American people are ready to accept it.
Cacti
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Bernie’s a team player, as long as you remember that you’re playing for Bernie’s team and not vice versa.
debbie
@John D.:
Honestly, I’m honored.
gwangung
@Mike J: Wait…he really IS trying to expense the Rome trip to his campaign? WTF?????
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@dollared: just like Obamacare and Medicaid expansion, and lifting the cap on Social Security earnings is so hugely popular it passed years ago. And the mortgage interest deduction on second homes, everyone understands that’s a subsidy for the upper-middle class and upper-er. And inheritance taxes! Cause it’s so obvious that it only affects a minuscule proportion of the electorate, surely campaigning to preserve inheritance taxes is a sure loser! Nobody buys that bullshit about family farms and small businesses
debbie
@Trollhattan:
This morning, they interviewed a self-described Reagan Democrat who proclaimed Donald Trump was the first true Reaganite since Reagan left office.
Gex
@debbie: Or maybe they don’t needlessly cave to “just asking questions” inquisitions because they’ve seen it devolve into a impeachment over a blow job.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
Sanders’s idiotic move plays right into the Republican’s unconstitutional, obstructionist move.
If he became President and a vacancy occurred during his 4th year in office, the Republicans would easily say, even Sanders campaigned on leaving the appointment open for the next presidential/congressional term.
jon
@Morzer: Obama has power. He can brush a lot of stuff off, but he’s also let a lot of things such as his birth certificate fester and generate their own inertia of sorts. Part of that was strategy, but some was just the inevitability of his attackers attacking.
But if you think he doesn’t look paranoid or whatever, it’s probably related to this factor: you’re a fan of his. It’s weird how images can be partly created by your willingness to believe someone. But it’s also very often true.
All the Democrats are used to this stuff now. Or they may as well be. When Clinton is President, she’ll seem overbearing and aloof (which is how Obama was described.) But she’ll be a cold-hearted bitch rather than a Vulcan, I imagine. There might be an explanation for that difference in descriptor, but I’ll leave it to future historians.
Mike J
@gwangung: I don’t know, and none of us really will until we see what he files with the FEC.
BTW, haven;t been here today, but was expecting to see you and hear your thoughts on Hwood trying to CGI Scarjo into an Asian. I’m always on the lookout for new swear words.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@dollared: so why hasn’t free education and free medical in exchange for higher taxes passed in deep, deep blue Vermont? If Sanders can’t sell his utopian socialist paradise there, then where can he.
gwangung
@Mike J: Ah, OK. That’s such WTF thing that I hope he doesn’t.
As far as GSI is concerned….my twitter and Facebook feed has exploded with all the shares and comments.
But no swear words. I just think Hollywood is gonna find out the Hulk really IS Asian now…..
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@efgoldman: even if the senate flips, if you appoint someone who is demonstrably to Ginsburg’s left it will be filibustered (IOKIYAR + Abe Fortas).
Calouste
@gwangung: Well, we don’t know that, but that $300,000 has to come from somewhere…
So Sanders accuses Clinton of getting $200,000 to give a one hour speech, but he himself is spending $300,000 to give a ten minute speech.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@efgoldman: Secret Service requirements is the reasonable explanation I’ve seen offered. Though one does wonder where the famously impoverished Sanderseses got the money to fly all three generations of the family. Let’s apply the SPEECHES standards to this trip: Prove you did nothing wrong!
jl
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Except Sanders did not say, and is not campaigning on that notion.
Are the Berniephobes here trying to give GOP hacks silly ideas on how to spin their BS on the Garland nomination, that will disappear into the political fail abyss, or backfire? I hope that is the intent. And if that is the intention, then, carry on, Dear Sir.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@efgoldman: well, remember, it’s not some incompetent crypto-Republican like Obama trying to sell the “Tax increases! For your own good!” line, it’ll be Bernie Sanders, and everyone dollared talks to on the internet agrees it will be easy, because Bernie!
jl
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I read that Sanders’ net worth is between $700K and $900K. He is a pauper by Senate standards, probably the most pathetically poor schmuck in the Senate since Biden left, but a high net worth individual (HNWI) by US ‘lesser’ person standards.
But, a Sanders jet flight slush fund scandal would be interesting, so have at it, folks.
Mike J
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
To be fair, you need a largish plane to cross the pond (and then some), and once you’ve chartered a large plane, there’s no reason not to take people along.
I don’t think there’s a security reason to not fly commercial, it’s just that the last flight to Rome left New York about the time the debate started. Government officials often fly commercial.
Calouste
@efgoldman: Last direct flight from New York to Rome is at 10.05 PM, at which time Sanders was still participating in the debate.
Corner Stone
@dollared:
Anyone who is not wealthy that mentions taxes as a sore point is really talking about race. They don’t want their hard earned money going to lazy blacks.
That’s all. There is no way to discuss taxes and tax rates with racist white people. In 2010 a majority of Americans believed Obama had raised their taxes, even though that was factually and demonstrable not true.
Gin & Tonic
@John D: Since talk was of Ryan, I’m pretty sure you know that I know the difference between the houses of Congress and was referring to a sitting member of the lower house. Which is why the first clause of my comment referred to “US Reps.”
But thanks for the pedantry.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@jl: he said obama should withdraw the nomination after the election and it should be left to him (president sanders).
I’m sorry if you don’t see how that plays into wingnut hands and how it would self inflict damage onto Sanders if he became president and found himself in the same situation.
face it, the NYDN interview exposed that he’s not well thought out.
Corner Stone
@jl:
How in the world could this possibly be true? If he’s worth less than $1M he better have a fuckton of charitable donations or I want him nowhere near the national coffers.
Turgidson
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
I think, if the GOP blocks Garland and loses the election badly, they’ll lose the Senate majority and be in no position to carry out a filibuster on the next nominee in the immediate wake of the election. I’ve overestimated their capacity for shame in the past, so I admit they could and very well may try a filibuster. But after their bullshit blockade and electoral wipeout, I see it falling apart and the nominee getting seated.
Brachiator
@dollared:
Quite possibly. Mainly because he has not really thought it through.
No, if it took money out of their pocket and was not a good deal. Maybe their kids don’t want or need to go to college. Maybe they already qualify for free or cheaper health insurance.
Mike J
@jl:
He owns a house. A few years ago the purity ponies decided it was awful that Barney Frank is worth over a million dollars, while neglecting to say that almost all of that is because he owns a house in Boston that he had bought 20 years before.
I’m no Sanders fan, but if his net worth wasn’t at least that high after 25 years of earning ~$170k, he wouldn’t be qualified to run a hot dog stand,.
jl
@Corner Stone: Some people here are of the opinion that wingnut GOP hacks can spin the purest gold political PR out of anything,. Some (I don’t think you, though) have spun themselves into a state or near constant panic and paralysis over that notion.
So, here is what I believe: I disagree with that idea. But opinions may differ, in my view. (and I am pointing and shouting now, too!)
Davebo
@Mike J:
Trust me, it’s not hard to do.
John D.
@Gin & Tonic: I meant my comment in good fun, but what the fuck is up with people using words incorrectly today and being fucking touchy about it? if you meant “Representative” there is a perfectly cromulent word for it — REPRESENTATIVE. Using Congressman means SOMETHING ELSE. It doesn’t matter that your first clause was “US Reps”. The terms are not synonyms.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@Mike J: lot of hotel rooms. I image the rates must be low for the Motel 6 in Rome.
Corner Stone
@Turgidson:
You mean you thought it was possible they barely understood the definition of the term?
Because that is wildly over estimating their capacity for shame.
jl
@Mike J: So, he can chip in for a damn plane ride. Since I think that the old coot clearly tried to highlight the trip for his campaign, not sure using campaign funds for it is out of bounds.
If there was a meeting with Pope Francis in the works during the trip, I am not surprised it was cancelled. But I heard no meetings with Pope due to his travel to Lesbos to meet with refugees.
Turgidson
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
To be clear, I think it’s wrong for him to state that Obama should withdraw the nomination after the election, because it lends credibility to the idea that what the GOP is doing to Garland is legitimate. Until the election happens, Bernie’s and Hillary’s and all Dems’ position should be that the Senate needs to do its fucking job and let Garland go through the confirmation process. My point is just that if the GOP really does carry its stonewall through the election and gets pounded, make them pay the highest possible price for it.
jl
@Corner Stone: I agree. Not only lack of shame, but also desperation. The GOP has been resorting to whatever gets them past the next election, next year, next week, and now looks like next day for years. They will probably do the same this time, even if it costs them the Senate and puts a big dent in their House majority.
McConnell wake up if the election looks to be very bad? I don’t think so as long as his seat is safe, and I believe that he isn’t even running this time. So, very unlikely he will react if that is bothersome to him in any way.
Bobby Thomson
@Davebo: no. As usual, he was lying out his ass.
Brachiator
@Corner Stone:
This is categorically not true. Everyone knows that white people’s hard earned money goes to lazy and criminal Mexican illegals who get a cash voucher as soon as they cross the border.
Davebo
@Bobby Thomson:
Actually, he did.
gwangung
@Turgidson: A smart politician could have put the shiv in quite adroitly.
jl
@jl: Sorry, that comment was supposed to be a reply to the gentle(wo?)men below:
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
Bobby Thomson
@dollared: no, and hell no. Two thirds of his own supporters are willing to pay a maximum of an additional 1000 in taxes for his programs. Doesn’t take Karl Rove to bludgeon him to the point where 1972 looks like a good year.
JUST SOME FUCKHEAD
@jl:
WELCOME TO MY PIE FILTER!
Davis X. Machina
Don’t take it out on Morzer and debbie.
This was all inevitable given the Democratic party rules, and its insistence on a virtue-take-all primary system.
Frankensteinbeck
@jl:
Ryan could pass a clean budget with ease. He won’t bring it up for a vote. The same was true with every budget for Boehner. They’re exploiting the power of the Speakership for unprecedented obstructionism, and yelling ‘The Tea Party made me do it!’ No, he just doesn’t want to pass anything with Democratic votes.
The Tea Party never figured out that Boehner was the best friend they ever had.
Bobby Thomson
@Davebo: not according to what you linked. That’s not a full return.
Gin & Tonic
@John D.: I thought the sentence read better if I didn’t write “Representatives” twice, and I assumed the readership of this blog would be at least perceptive enough to recognize that my (admittedly imprecise) use of “Congressmen” in the second clause excluded Senators, just on the off chance that I might have a long enough memory to recall the election of US Senator Barack Obama. If my assumption was incorrect, my bad.
So, smart guy, name a sitting US Representative who was elected to the Presidency, like Paul Ryan would be theoretically poised to do. I can’t come up with one.
Corner Stone
@jl: I was confused but decided to just eat some salsa and go with it.
jl
@JUST SOME FUCKHEAD: you forgot the exclamation point for your nym.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@Turgidson: I think your put a lot of thought into your position. All I’m saying is you just cant nominate anyone you want. The nominee still has to be reasonable. For example, if Sanders nominated Alan Grayson (a Harvard trained lawyer) it would fail because it would be easy to demonize him. Or if you nominate someone who is merely controversial, as opposed to objectionable, you would have to use up a lot of political capital that you would need to pas other polices. That is why practicality is necessary.
Corner Stone
@Turgidson:
Anyone who suggests this is an open debate on what should happen next should be roundly booed and hissed at every opportunity.
There is one president at a time, and that person gets to have his/her nominated person evaluated.
jl
@Corner Stone:
” I was confused but decided to just eat some salsa and go with it. ”
And let that be a lesson to you, you damn kids these days.
John D.
@Gin & Tonic: There wasn’t one, as far as I know. I never claimed there was.
In the 20th Century, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and GHWB were the only former Representatives who became President.
chopper
@John D.:
actually the term ‘congressman’ is often, i’d even say typically, used to mean ‘representative’. strangely enough, ‘member of congress’ refers to either house.
i can’t remember the last time i’ve heard a senator referred to as ‘congressman’.
Gin & Tonic
@Bobby Thomson: But, hey, no Wall Street taint there. A whopping $11 in interest and $2 in dividends.
Sorry, but purity pony or no, how can you have an AGI over $200k for presumably a quarter-century and not have a few bucks in a bank somewhere? You want to be pure, put it in a goddamn municipal credit union in VT. But, really, $11 in interest earned? WTF?
starscream
Why is “only” making as much as Sanders did some kind of badge of honor? What’s the line where it becomes too much?
jl
@Gin & Tonic: It may be a new and innovative form of trolling,
Corner Stone
@Gin & Tonic: It’s mind boggling as Ms. Sanders was also an accomplished professional for much/most of that time and earning a salary.
If you were earning $120K or $150K 15+ years ago you were making real coin.
chopper
@Gin & Tonic:
yeah that’s a pretty paltry nest egg for a couple making as much as they have every year. they need a financial panther.
John D.
@Gin & Tonic: Wait! By some metric, James Garfield could be considered a Rep-President, though it’s a bit odd.
He was a US Rep from Ohio until November 8, 1880, but he ran for the next Congress as a Senator AND for US President. He won the Presidential election on November 2, 1880, and he won the Senate seat in January 1881.
Since he was officially a US Rep on the date he won the Presidential election, I think he might be an actual Representative -> President switch.
Gin & Tonic
@jl: Without looking at the nym it was as if Cervantes had come back.
debbie
@Gin & Tonic:
My thought exactly!
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
Turgidson
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
Agreed. I don’t have a wacky or controversial choice like Grayson in mind. But the best combination of young and liberal yet qualified possible. Sri Srinivasan comes to mind, though he isn’t as liberal as I’d ideally like on some things.
Monala
@dollared: The problem with Sanders’ tax plans is that they are not going to be slight increases, but extensive ones, for people at all income levels. As has already been pointed out on another thread, a majority of both Sanders and Clinton supporters are willing to pay more in taxes to achieve universal healthcare and free higher education (Sanders supporters at a higher percentage), but neither group is willing to pay as much in higher taxes as would be required. In fact, Sanders supporters are only willing to have their taxes go up about a fourth of what they would need to to implement Sanders’ agenda.Linky
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@Monala:
The whole idea that anything Sanders proposes will make sense to anyone not locked inside Bernie’s magic bubble with all the other lotus eaters needs to go spend time at a city budget hearing where getting money to give teachers a raise, or buy a new fire truck, or install a new boiler at the parks and rec building, requiring a slight increase in the mil rate, and get a fucking clue about how likely it is that they’ll agree to pay a lot more to the federal government for half baked pie in the sky for free college, which is paid for and administered at the state level anyway. It’s so absurd, only Sanders supporters can buy that level of bullshit. Because they, like Sanders, has no fucking idea how anything works.
cthulhu
@jl:
I think if he does truly have strong Presidential ambitions he needs to get out of the House sooner rather than later for the very reasons you cite. Like Boehner, he may have to rely on Dem votes at times and that’s toxic for his aspirations. His best bet would likely be to go for Baldwin’s seat in 2018 given the off year and aggressive voter suppression and thus get out of the madhouse. His stock would rise on that promotion and he could pontificate from on high and not accomplish anything and not really get hurt by that fact as a Senator.
Unless something really serious happens (less likely under Dem leadership) I don’t think he would be wise to then go after Clinton (or Sanders) in 2020. Better to wait for 2024; he’s young. The GOP landscape could very well be quite different by that time but I’d give better than even odds it will be to his benefit as the supposedly sober one.
J R in WV
@Morzer:
Hillary Clinton’s “negatives” are the result of a drumbeat of negative falsehoods being propagated by the whole mass media industry, which is being controlled by billionaire ownership. And the Billionaire ownership wants a pliable Republican in the White House.
The Ownership Class has hated the Clintons for decades, because the Clintons care more about people than they do the Ownership Class. So the Ownership Class has spent billions of dollars trying to spoil the image of both President Bill Clinton and candidate Hillary Clinton.
The miracle would be if after billions of dollars spent on bogus stories about everything from airplanes loaded with cocaine landing on airstrips in rural Arkansas that somehow were related by Governor Clinton by Whooo Magic!!! The death of Vincent Foster, murdered by Hillary because he wouldn’t do whatever, woooo magic. Lesbian love fests in the Situation Room late at night, with NO pictures, because wooooo magic.
Advertising works. We know this because businesses spend billions of dollars on advertising. They do this because they can measure the payoff in dollars spent on TV, movie placements, endorsements by sports stars, movie stars, etc, versus profits from enhanced sales from those expensive ad campaigns.
So their media campaign, which we know is ongoing from just counting stories about Hillary Clinton and their subject, is bound to have an effect on people exposed to it. I don’t watch much TV, about 3 hours a week. Plus the odd sports event in the fall and winter.
So I still think Hillary Clinton is an upstanding person running for office because she believes she can help people – how naive is that? Not at all, why else would a millionaire run for office? She can retire to the south of France, with Secret Service protection, if she wants to. Instead she puts up with the BS the Republicans conjure up about her ethics.
Compared to whom? Republicans like Denny Hastert? Paul Ryan? Donald F’in’ Trump??
Sterling character compared to any Republican. Ask anyone who worked with her.
Big Picture Pathologist
@the Conster, la Citoyenne:
This Bernie supporter knows that we spend too much on the military, subsidies for corporations, and other things that DON’T need our money.
Why the hell do we need to assume taxes need to be raised at all? Just divert them! Most of the stuff we want to fund costs LESS than what we’re ALREADY spending all this money on.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@Big Picture Pathologist:
Because all of those things you mention are jobs programs. Why do you think there’s a military or other government contractor in almost every single Congressional district? Who do you think voted on the law that stuck the subsidy for a certain corporation in there to benefit a certain constituency? Who do you think would be voting on uprooting all that? Bernie’s not going to scold gerrymandered safe Congressmen into doing it, now matter how much fantastic powers you Bernie supporters ascribe to him. They’ll tell him to go fuck himself. Like I said, none of you seems to have any clue about anything.