feel a little badly for @SenWarren, whose ambitious proposal to tackle public corruption is prob being bumped from the headlines by breaking stories about public corruption
— Catherine Rampell (@crampell) August 21, 2018
Per CNN:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren unveiled a series of new planks Tuesday in her wider plan to stem corporate influence on government and root out corruption in Washington…
Warren’s plan, which would impose a lifetime ban on appointed officials from taking lobbying jobs, is dead on arrival in a Republican-controlled Congress. But it is likely to influence the talking points of other Democrats and, should she run for higher office in 2020, be a staple of her campaign pitch.
In a speech at the National Press Club, Warren called for Congress to “end lobbying as we know it” and not allow “the rich and powerful buy their way into congressional offices.”
“Our national crisis of faith in government boils down to this simple fact: People don’t trust their government to do the right thing because they think government works for the rich, the powerful and the well-connected and not for the American people,” Warren said. “And here’s the kicker: They’re right.”…
Among the more specific new rules Warren is proposing in her Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act are a prohibition on elected and senior agency officials owning or trading stock while in office; the livestreaming of audio from federal appellate court proceedings; a requirement to make public a record of all meetings between lobbyists and public officials; and perhaps most dramatically, the creating of a new independent agency to enforce new and existing ethics laws.
The unveiling on Tuesday marked the second major policy proposal from Warren, who is also up for re-election to the Senate this year, in as many weeks.Her Accountable Capitalism Act, unveiled last week, would require American corporations to have 40% of their directors elected by their own workers, obtain shareholder and board approval for any political spending (which must then be made public), and put the brakes on the pace at which top executives can sell off stock in their own companies…
In nod to Manafort trial, Warren proposes banning all Americans from lobbying for foreign governments. "If foreign governments want to express their views they can use their diplomats."
— Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) August 21, 2018
Elizabeth Warren proposes banning members of Congress from owning individual stocks as part of sweeping anti-corruption bill https://t.co/EXu95J0xDp
— Joseph Lawler (@josephlawler) August 21, 2018
… “The problem is far bigger than Trump, and the way I see it this loss of faith this broad, and this profound, is more than a problem — it is a crisis, a crisis of faith,” the Massachusetts Democratic senator said at an event in Washington unveiling her legislation.
Warren’s bill would force members of Congress, judges, and high-ranking executive branch officials from owning individual stocks while in office. It would force the president and cabinet members to divest assets that could present conflicts of interest, something President Trump has not done.
The legislation would also go much further and ban members of Congress from lobbying after they left office, tighten existing lobbying restrictions, and require greater disclosure of influence peddling.
Congressional conflicts of interest have been subjected to added scrutiny thanks to the indictment of Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., for insider trading.
In her speech, though, Warren also highlighted aspects of the Trump administration that she argued were egregious, saying that the administration has provided the “most nakedly corrupt leadership this nation has seen in our lifetimes.”
Second Q to Warren at her NPC speech on corruption is about… Ocasio-Cortez not allowing press into one of her town halls. (Warren refocuses the Q to point out that, well, SHE lets press into all of her town halls, as one should.)
— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) August 21, 2018
The Democrats’ new argument for why they should be in charge? Corruption. @paulwaldman1 weighs in: https://t.co/HxNFqiCxJB
— Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) August 21, 2018
Baud
She picked the wrong day to unveil this.
Elizabelle
@Baud: It would be kind of nice if every day going forward was the wrong day … but yes, overwhelmed by a tsunami of bad Trump news.
Yea Elizabeth. Good suggestions. Fight them on corruption. It’s there, and it needs to stop.
Platonailedit
Does her long term proposal come with a one day shelf life? What an utter nonsense from the chase the shiny object media minions.
Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes
I’m never fond of breathless announcements of proposed legislation that are DOA. I tend to think of that as grandstanding.
Baud
I’m concerned she is setting out specific legislative proposals rather than hawking pithy slogans that we can respeat as mantras on Twitter.
Baud
@Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes: I kind of disagree. Some things take a long time to come to fruition. I can see something like this being enacted after 2020 if we take back the government.
Platonailedit
DanF
@Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes: Disagree. It’s a stake in the ground. I stand for this and all good Democrats should stand for this. You can’t change the conversation if you don’t start.
satby
@Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes: it’s useful as a cudgel to beat corrupt Republicans up with. This quote:
will resonate with a lot of voters of every party.
@Baud: ? here, let’s boil the above down for twitter: “people think the government works for the rich and they’re right. Let’s stop that and make it work for all of us” . That fits.
Platonailedit
@Baud: “Government is not your enemy?”
Dorothy A. Winsor
I can’t keep up with all the good posts. I don’t know if we’re fired up by yesterday’s Trumpocalypse or taking the chance to post while we can. In either case, it’s good.
Another Scott
Good proposals, and I don’t mind the timing. Conversations have to start somewhere, and starting before an election is good. Waiting until “the time is right” assumes that public pressure can rise and be effective quickly – it can’t (usually). Oak trees take years to mature…
Public service is a sacrifice for millions of people who work for us (teachers, firemen and women, and even the people who do the grunt work in public offices). It shouldn’t be a path to riches for corrupt elected officials.
(Who doesn’t have a problem with sensible people making millions on their books and speaking tours.)
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Platonailedit
@Dorothy A. Winsor:
That one.
Steeplejack
Warren was just on Morning Joe before 8:00 and had a fairly long discussion with Mika about this (enhanced by the absence of Joe, who is off today).
Platonailedit
Nice job by Steven Breen.
Immanentize
@Baud: Ha!
I think the pithy slogan that goes with her legislation is:
Corrupt AF
That’s pithy!
Baud
@Another Scott: I meant yesterday specifically, given all the other news.
Dorothy A. Winsor
@Immanentize: I see on a previous thread that Immp is looking at great universities. Good for him. They’re all pretty far from home though. No weekend visits. So…how are you doing, Dad?
Steeplejack
@Baud:
How was Warren supposed to know ahead of time that much shit would hit multiple fans at 4:00 p.m.?
A Ghost To Most
Shitler’s first tweet of the day just dropped:
Baud
@Steeplejack: I’m not blaming her. I’m saying she hit some bad luck.
Steeplejack
The latest from the tweeter in chief!
Baud
@A Ghost To Most: that actually doesn’t sound like him.
Baud
@Steeplejack: But what if you’re a corrupt client looking for a corrupt lawyer?
Steeplejack
@Baud:
“She picked the wrong day” an infelicitous choice of words, then.
JGabriel
Benjy Sarlin via Anne Laurie @ Top:
I like the idea, and agree with Warren’s observation re: diplomats, but I suspect it would run into first amendment issues. How do we tell US citizens they don’t have the right to express an opinion – or get paid for expressing an opinion – on whether, or not, or how, we should help another country?
Platonailedit
@Steeplejack:
Steeplejack
@Baud:
Jesse on Breaking Bad: “You don’t want a criminal lawyer. You want a criminal lawyer.”
Dorothy A. Winsor
@A Ghost To Most: @Steeplejack: So I guess a pardon is right out of question. LOL
Baud
@Steeplejack: No, it’s a common idiom for these types of situations.
JGabriel
@A Ghost To Most:
Says the man who retained Michael Cohen while telling us he only hires the best people.
Matt McIrvin
@JGabriel: Any restriction on money in politics runs into First Amendment issues, thanks to recent court precedents that identify money with political speech. Basically, they’ve decided you don’t have true freedom to do something unless someone who is 1,000 times richer can do it 1,000 times as much.
A Ghost To Most
@Dorothy A. Winsor: Everyone on the MJ panel burst out laughing when the tweet dropped. I
RobertDSC-Mac Mini
Just a plea to anyone who can talk to Alain:
the mobile site on my iPhone 6 via Safari is a horrendous resource drain. I lost 10% in battery power in trying to read the threads yesterday while doing nothing else on my phone. It is this site that is draining resources as no other site I visit causes that much battery loss.
If there is any way to fix that, it would be appreciated.
Steeplejack
@Dorothy A. Winsor:
Ha! Probably.
Lanny Davis was on Morning Joe earlier, and, among other things, he made several plaintive pitches for people to donate to Michael Cohen’s defense fund. Womp-womp.
Belafon
@Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes: It’s also part of campaigning, and representing who you are and hopefully who your party is. Not doing this would amount to the minority party having no influence over the narrative.
Steeplejack
@RobertDSC-Mac Mini:
Supposedly this is a temporary situation while a fix is in the works.
Is your phone’s screen big enough that you could switch to the desktop version of the site and expand the text to be readable?
Elizabelle
@A Ghost To Most: I don’t think Mr. Cohen is going to be a lawyer much longer.
Andy Borowitz yesterday:
Belafon
@Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes: It’s also part of campaigning, and representing who you are and hopefully who your party is. Not doing this would amount to the minority party having no influence over the narrative.
Frankensteinbeck
@Dorothy A. Winsor:
Like I said yesterday, if Cohen is angling for a pardon he’s a fool. Trump is too big an asshole to understanding protecting other people to protect himself.
A Ghost To Most
@Elizabelle:
Ha! Earlier, Mika said of Shitler, “The emperor has no clothes, and his lawyer is a drunk!”
Steeplejack
@RobertDSC-Mac Mini, @Steeplejack:
Also, the “not mobile/not quite desktop” version seems better behaved on my phone this morning.
Bobby Thomson
@JGabriel: that has to be unconstitutional. The trading ban and transparency in lobbying records are good ideas.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
One of the Obama Bros said the same thing yesterday about Rudi and the hooch. Sounds like one of those things “everybody” in Washington knows that’s starting to leak out to the broader world.
Betty Cracker
@RobertDSC-Mac Mini: I think he’s aware there are tons of issues (thread yesterday), but you can always email [email protected] if you want to report something specific. I’ve had a devil of a time with my iPhone lately — haven’t been able to post, and commenting capabilities are sporadic. Shitty timing, since the Angry Circus Peanut administration is teetering on the abyss!
Betty Cracker
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Ah, you heard Pod Save America? I’ve had to do a bit of local travel lately, so I’ve been listening to podcasts and heard that one too. It would not surprise me — the man is impaired by something.
Did you hear their take on corporate PAC money? It was an earlier episode. As frustrating as the prospect of “unilateral disarmament” is, I think the Obama Bros are right. Of course there’s no comparison of Republicans and Dems on that score, but try telling that to the general public.
Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes
So for Manafort, a pardon it is.
Dorothy A. Winsor
@Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes: That’s not real, is it? You’re just speculating? Don’t scare me like that. I had a heart attack way too recently.
tobie
I like Sen. Warren’s proposals a lot, but the populist rhetoric, like the bolded part in this quote, is like nails on a blackboard for me:
People like Scott Walker, Devin Nunes, Chris Collins, Duncan Hunter, etc. have enriched themselves mightily while in office, and Warren is right that people in office should not be allowed to use their office for insider trading. But it’s not their personal fortunes that got them elected. It’s the money from industry that poured into their campaigns. Warren is too smart for this populist crap. She’s demagoguing this and I find that deeply unattractive.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Betty Cracker: I think it was on that episode that Favreau or Pfeiffer raised the idea that a million Dems donating $100 each can do a lot to counteract PAC money. I think targeted, well-defined campaigns like that could do a lot to engage donors, bringing in people who might have a hundred dollars to spare, who feel disgusted but overwhelmed when they hear about the Koch brothers or Shelly Adelson dropping tens of millions on Republicans without breaking a sweat
Yarrow
There were elections yesterday that kind of got lost in the news avalanche.
Aleta
@Baud: @Steeplejack:
Random thought: It occurs to me that the active voice of that idiom
“you picked a fine time to leave me Lucille
five hungry children
and a crop in the field”
is slightly the opposite of when using passive voice accidentally or intentionally implies no responsibility.
Leto
@Another Scott:
BerniBros. Anyone named Hillary Clinton. I think that covers it.
BC in Illinois
@Matt McIrvin:
The First Amendment to the U S Constitution, according to recent court pdrcedants:
Bobby Thomson
@tobie: demagoguing is very much on brand.
jonas
@Baud:
Being Infrastructure Week and all…
Betty Cracker
@tobie: Maybe she’s talking about the rich and powerful influencing lawmakers — “buy their way into congressional offices” could easily mean fat cats getting face time with congresscritters due to donations. She’s 100% right about that. And honestly, if she’s talking about rich people outright purchasing political offices, like Rick Scott did here in Florida by contributing $72M to his own campaign, I don’t really have a problem with that either. The people who do that are overwhelmingly conservatives.
Steeplejack
@Aleta:
Not quite sure what you’re getting at, because I can’t tell whether “is slightly the opposite of when using passive voice accidentally or intentionally implies no responsibility” is supposed to be one sentence or two that got run together.
jonas
@Yarrow: Would that be that billionaire jackass Foster Friess who bankrolled Santorum’s vanity presidential campaign, and suggested women just hold an aspirin between their knees if they didn’t want to get pregnant?
Good riddance to bad trash.
Immanentize
@JGabriel: @Matt McIrvin: @BC in Illinois:
The first amendment does not apply to non-US citizens, so it is a closer call then you guys suggest. Congress could ban lobbying by foreign governments. No first amendment problem at all. The right to redress is probably US citizen specific. So, once you ban lobbying by foreign governments (or entities?) you side door ban the use of US citizens from lobbying on behalf of those governments. But what about AIPAC, you ask?
Kay
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
IMO, corruption is an issue that plays well with Democratic voters. It was the main issue Democrats used in Ohio in ’06. They had the national corruption in the GOP Congress and then state-level corruption. I thought it was much bigger than any anti-Iraq invasion sentiment as far as voters. Getting them out.
They’re actually using corruption effectively this cycle and it seems to be effective- Sherrod is ahead and so is Cordray.
It helps if the Democrat is clean and Sherrod Brown and Cordray are squeaky clean.
I’m really pleased with Warren’s proactiveness on both this and the bill to reform corporate governance. I don’t want to stay on defense all the time. It’s dispiriting to our base. We can’t just “protect”- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, abortion rights, civil rights. That’s a defensive position and we can’t stay there. I personally can’t stay there- it doesn’t keep me engaged.
Immanentize
@Kay: Warren is smart. Her proposals are both good policy AND tie into (what should be) the Democratic themes of the mid-terms.
Leto
@Betty Cracker: Have you listened to The Wilderness? It’s the O Bros (specifically Favreau) take on what’s wrong with the Dem party and potentially how to fix it. Some interesting ideas. They still have a tendency to shit on Hillary though (regular PSA podcasts) which leaves me more irritated with them. Pfeiffer’s Pod Save the World is a better one to listen to (foreign policy focused).
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: That’s an interesting idea, trying to bring in more voters like that but how sustainable is that over the long run when, as you admitted and we know, the top 5 R donors can match that amount without breaking a sweat? Agree though that we have to start somewhere.
Yarrow
@jonas: The very same! And it looks like even a Trump endorsement couldn’t get him across the finish line.
smintheus
We also new a bill prohibiting members of Congress from borrowing money from banks that are lobbying them, which has now become a standard means of corrupting Republican swamp overlords. Vern Buchanan has been caught taking multi-million dollar loans from a foreign bank to buy a yacht and a plane while the bank was trying to influence him on tax proposals during the last few years. Buchanan is chair of the Tax Policy subcommittee of House Ways and Means. He used one of the loans to buy a yacht the day he voted for the Trump tax bill.
Gin & Tonic
@Yarrow: So a 78-year-old hedge fund manager is not an ideal gubernatorial candidate. Who could have guessed?
Yarrow
@Kay:
Yes. This.
Betty Cracker
@Leto: I listened to one half of the first episode of The Wilderness — the one that rehashed the 2016 election. The part I heard was painful but good. I only stopped listening because I arrived at my destination! Will catch up next time I’m in the car.
tobie
@Betty Cracker:
I like your phrasing a lot better than hers and agree with the point entirely. Government has come to serve the interests of the few–the fossil fuel industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the gambling industry, etc etc etc.–and reforms of the kind Sen. Warren is discussing are desperately needed. I wouldn’t have responded to Warren’s phrasing if this were a one-off occasion. It’s not. She’s smart and she knows what she’s doing. That’s what bothers me.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
MSNBC just announced and upcoming panel with Alan Dershowitz and Omarosa Manigault. My first thought was “journamalistic malpractice, even for political cable”. As nutty and hateful as the racist old coot may be, he’s been practicing and talking law, and chasing TV cameras, for longer than OMN has been alive. But with her pathological self-confidence and ability to word-salad shoot and inside knowledge and willingness to make accusations, Derhsowitz might meet his match in shameless showboating.
Frankensteinbeck
@Kay:
I think this is generally true, and I really like 90% of what I hear in this post. I do cringe at the accusation that government works for the rich. That should never be said without a clear qualifier that the speaker means Republicans. The argument that both parties are owned by corporations is the primary Purity Pony advertising pitch to young idealists.
Immanentize
@Yarrow: @Kay: Reduce the SS age to 60 — give the kids a chance in the world!
Jim, Foolish Literalist
That and their tendency to treat Wilmer and his cultists with kid gloves (and the 8 million other podcasts I try to keep up with) have made me leery of the Wilderness, but I’ve seen a lot of positive chatter. Maybe I’ll save it for an upcoming road trip
Corner Stone
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
The main problem is that it’s on Hallie Jackson’s time block. And I can’t decide who I dislike more intensely of the three. Personally, I am loving this new Omarosa character the networks have unveiled. She’s smart, can’t be thrown off-track, and is a wonderful saleswoman.
Dersh is going to Dersh. How do you teach law if you say out loud that something is a crime but everyone does it, so meh? I mean, we’re not talking rolling through a stop sign.
Corner Stone
@Leto: I gave the Obama Bros multiple chances but for my tastes they simply are not worth my time. Shitting on HRC for no damn good reason, selling NYT subscriptions, and getting into bed with Bill Frist to “reform” healthcare. No thanks. They sometimes do give good tweet though.
Aleta
@Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes: That assumption needs more information than we have:
Who’s paying for his lawyers?
Did he refuse a deal with prosecutors ahead of time because
–he expects a pardon
–he’s holding information with enough weight to plead down his sentence, but waited to see the verdict (Or he couldn’t get witness protection yet; they’ve waited to offer it until they can get more out of him); or
–he didn’t feel fear before now (Must have a high threshold for self-protective fear, considering his past clients)
Does Trump believe a pardon will save him or make him look guilty. This depends on the effect of what Mueller does next.
Who’s the biggest threat to Manafort?
I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets one though. Lying about taxes and on loan applications– made a mistake on the those complicated forms–who hasn’t done that? (Yo, Trump. Hey Kushner)
Corner Stone
Thought this was funny:
Leto
@Betty Cracker: Another recommendation would be the Slow Burn podcast. The first season covered Watergate and personally I learned a lot. Second season is out and they’re covering Bill Clinton. First episode was how the FBI first approached Monica Lewinsky, and interviews some of the agents involved with that.
Regarding The Wilderness, I’ll be interested on your take when you get to the Obama/Trump voters episode. I think that’s ep 5? Mainly with their take regarding those voters vs the BJ hivemind.
Aleta
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Gordon Liddy toured a sideshow act with Timothy Leary in the 80s or 90s. Dog help us with the entertainment marketing to come.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Aleta: I’d rather have Avenatti rebooting Crossifre with Scaramucci than running for president, in part because I don’t watch CNN
Yarrow
@Aleta: The only real question is, does Trump think pardoning Manafort is good for Trump. He’s a narcissist and as such only sees things as good for him or bad for him.
I maintain that pardoning Manafort is bad for Trump. If pardoned, Manafort would lose his ability to use the fifth amendment because he could not longer incriminate himself on those issues. Manafort talking is bad for Trump, so why would Trump pardon him?
Leto
No edit button:
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I’ve noticed that too regarding Wilmer and company. Any other good political podcast recommendations?
@Corner Stone: Monday’s podcast had a part where they talked about what a hard time Chuck Todd has with trying to fact check liars in real time (specifically Ghouliani and “truth is not truth”), essentially giving Chuckles a pass, and saying that there’s still value in inviting on known liars. I was in the middle of my run, so couldn’t easily change the podcast, but the urge to throw my phone was very strong. So same question I asked Jim: better podcast recommendation?
Yarrow
@Leto: Maybe we should have a thread for podcast recommendations, like we have with book recommendations.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
that was one of those moments when I wanted to join twitter just to give somebody a dopeslap– “If it’s what you say it is, I love it, especially later in the summer!” is the heart of the whole fucking thing. THere’s no earpiece excuse for Chuckles letting that slide
PSA and Slow burn (second your rec, it’s great) are really the only political podcasts I listen to. I turn to history podcasts to get away from trump
gene108
Anti-corruption worked in 2006. There was a back lash against Foley and perceived Republican corruption in covering up his wrong doings.
tobie
@Leto: It would be interesting to have an open thread devoted to voters we know personally who switched from Obama to Trump. My suspicion is that this demographic is very small and self-reporting is not the most reliable index. Still it would be interesting to hear about those who made the switch. I’ve only encountered one person who voted for Obama in 2008, didn’t vote in 2012 and went MAGA crazy in 2016. He’s got a small business removing and pruning trees. The big issue with him was that he felt like he couldn’t compete with “Mexicans” (the group he identified), so immigration was the big draw for him.
Another Scott
@Kay: Atrios is a crank about too many things, but he was and is right that 401Ks are a disaster and Expanding Social Security is excellent policy.
I agree that we need to run on offense much, much more often.
Cheers,
Scott.
Corner Stone
@Leto: I don’t listen to any podcasts with regularity. I’ll come across one or some piece of one that sounds interesting and give it a try. But I simply do not like the format for regular intake. I would much rather have a transcript to skim. And even when it’s video format I still can’t watch anything that’s 45 minutes long. So anyways…no.
Betty Cracker
@Frankensteinbeck:
That’s absolutely true, but from what I see, it resonates far beyond that audience, and we’ve got to find a way to address that. 40% of eligible voters don’t even bother to show up in a presidential election year, and something like 65% don’t cast a ballot in midterm elections. That’s a genuine crisis of democracy.
I’ve registered a ton of non-voters since November 2016, and the overwhelming impression I’ve gotten from my conversations with them is that they didn’t bother to vote because they didn’t think it would make a difference. They buy the “both sides/they all suck” message. Sanders, Warren, et al, didn’t invent it — they’re responding to what people believe.
You can argue that they’re reinforcing a false narrative, and I take that point — it’s one I make frequently myself. But I don’t think it’s very convincing beyond the choir, tbh.
Putting a stake in the ground on corruption like Warren is doing could maybe move the needle. Another thing that would be helpful, IMO, is to root out corruption in our party where it exists. And while the scale of Democratic corruption compared to that of Republicans is roughly proportional to the size of a BB and Jupiter, it does exist. For example, someone should have had a talk with Bob Menendez and told him to take a hike.
Frankensteinbeck
@Yarrow:
There’s another factor. Narcissists are rarely logical. He’s a mean shit, and he likes kicking people who are in trouble. Plus, someone made an excellent point about Trump while observing last night’s rally. Narcissists retreat from shame. “Manafort who?” is a very natural response to them, because they are far more insecure and terrified of public censure than regular people.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Betty Cracker: it’s a tricky line to walk, but it’s a point Dems and their allies need to push. It’s one of the reasons the lazy anti-Pelosi rhetoric drives me nuts. The idea that she’s part of the fabled “neo-liberal” borg because she’s old and influential (and personally ) rich doesn’t change the fact that she’s a progressive fighter.
That said, someone needs to point out to her that bragging about her fund-raising to TV cameras is the wrong message for this moment. Talk about expanding health care, protecting the environment and voting rights.
Chris Johnson
@Frankensteinbeck:
wat? Money is party-blind. You’re insane if you don’t think Democrats are way deep in that trough. The difference is, Democrats have a chance if the trough is gone. Republicans don’t.
The whole business of re-election campaigns, which are constant, is taking money from rich people and rich corporations. That’s nearly all they do. It’s constant phonebanking and trying to find contributors. It’s actually a horrible job, I think just about anybody stuck with it would like a better way.
Kay
Adam Davidson
Verified account
This will be popular- a crackdown on white collar crime. I would bet money on it. The 3% of people who are offended by it weren’t voting for your candidates anyway and even if they did it wouldn’t matter- they’re 3%.
Betty Cracker
@Kay: Yes! Chris Hayes pointed out that Manafort and Cohen had no priors before yesterday — even though they’ve been high-profile grifters in plain sight for decades. Meanwhile, we’re the planet’s chief jailer, incarcerating the poor (disproportionately POC) for crimes that materially affect practically no one and ruining average citizens’ lives over petty shit. It’s outrageous.
gene108
@Frankensteinbeck:
Even non-Bernie/ DSA’ers, who are solidly behind Democrats feel Democrats are not above being corrupt. If you look at heavily Democratic areas, like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc., there’s always some city official getting busted for corruption, whether it’s the mayor, the DA, the city controller, etc.
I think it is good to take a stand as being against corruption, but there’s enough corruption on the Democratic side, on an individual basis, that people feel both sides are not playing fair.
I think what has to be conveyed is the difference between individual corruption and creating a climate of systemic corruption. Individual Democrats maybe corrupt, but they are not creating a system that caters to allowing the rich and powerful to write laws in their favor, which Republicans are doing. I’m not holding my breath that this will be explained to people, as to requires a level of nuance most folks don’t have the time or interest to grasp.
The Moar You Know
@tobie: I know two Trump voters who claim to have voted for Obama in 2008. One I know for a fact did not, voted for McCain. My estimate is that the vast majority of people who claimed to have done this did not.
Evil_Paul
@RobertDSC-Mac Mini: Holy crap, you ain’t kidding! I’m reading off an iPhone 6 as well and I’m down 2/3 Battery life! And I literally just unplugged it this morning to catch up on last night’s threads.
schrodingers_cat
@gene108:
Well said. As for individual corruption, human nature being what it is, it is going to be impossible to eradicate. But Rs are consistently against regulations and rules that would in any way hold white collar criminals accountable
schrodingers_cat
@tobie: My ex-friend voted for Obama twice and then for JS in 2016. Her husband voted for Obama twice and then for T. So only one example.
VOR
This was one of Trump’s campaign messages. He said politicians catered to the rich and powerful because they gave campaign contributions. He knew, because he did it. Then he claimed that his insight into the corruption uniquely allowed him to fix the system. Of course he hasn’t done squat since elected to address this other than the empty slogan of “drain the swamp” and bringing new, more feral creatures into the swamp.
tobie
@Frankensteinbeck: @Betty Cracker: @gene108: Since Reagan, people have been running against the government because Reagan convinced the electorate that the government was the enemy of the people. I think there are two ways to respond to this. One is to talk about combatting corruption, the other is to talk about making government work for you. I’m more taken by the latter, but clearly others are more moved by the corruption pitch. The Democratic party is going to have to find a way to adopt both lines. It’s not easy. This is the conundrum of being a truly big-tent coalition.
Steeplejack (phone)
@The Moar You Know:
Why do you think that they claim to have voted for Obama?
Steeplejack (phone)
@schrodingers_cat:
What was their reasoning?
Betty Cracker
@tobie: IMO, combating corruption and making the government work for you aren’t competing messages. The baseline argument is this: The government is working for fat cats now because they buy access. Let’s drive them out so ordinary citizens can be heard and served.
Reagan railed against government per se, implying that everything would be better if government just got out of the way. I don’t think even his moron supporters really believed that — they wanted their Social Security, Medicare, etc., they just didn’t want black people to get benefits.
schrodingers_cat
@Steeplejack (phone): BLM and all the anti-ISIS hysteria freaked out my friend who was also very anti-HRC. She was on the BS bus. Her husband is an R, who came home. Temporary sanity was because he personally liked Obama and was pissed with W for tanking the economy. Also they both moved from a college town to wingnut central in Idaho to be with family.
wuzzat
@Baud: “Give the government back to the people,” or if that sounds too “entitlement programmy,” “Take the government back from Wall Street.”
Trumpistas and Berners hate Wall Street because Hillary Clinton gave speeches there.
Another Scott
@gene108:
This.
I think this is the absolutely biggest problem with Democrats not having bigger success in the suburbs and rural areas (even bigger than racism and the rest). People look at how badly and how corruptly too many Democratically-controlled cities have been run and say they can’t vote for that party. We really need to do more to clean up big-city politics in many, many areas.
Of course, there are lots of reasons why cities are badly run (lack of investment in the 100+ year old physical plant, residual pollution poisoning residents, etc.). And lots of the bad examples aren’t as bad as, say, intentionally poisoning Flint. But that doesn’t mean that Democratic leaders should think that they can get away with being corrupt.
Being an elected official means that you are given certain powers in return for the expectation that you will conduct yourself honorably. Too many people on our team don’t do that.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
J R in WV
@RobertDSC-Mac Mini:
YOU can talk to Alain, there’s a click link to email site issues on the front page. Though Major^4 might get some of those emails… but I’m betting you don’t care who fixes it.
Also, install an ad-blocker, which will fix many or most of the issues, which are caused by ads being written to misbehave.
J R in WV
@tobie:
Your comment has nothing to do with Warren’s proposed legislation. She’s talking about lobbying, and you’re talking about elections.
Wake up and learn to read, then go and read her proposal, as opposed to bits or misleading propaganda about her proposal. You are making things up because of your personal feelings, which is as bad as the Republicans making things up about Demonrats on their side.
The last thing we need is someone who claims to be on our side building strawmen for the fascists. Or maybe you are on their side, I don’t know you so I won’t claim to have an opinion until I learn more.
tobie
@J R in WV: Good grief. Did you read what I wrote?
Or this a few comments down:
It’s also true that she slips into a populist rhetoric that obviously many people find very appealing. I just don’t happen to be one of them. I like Warren when she shows not her common but her uncommon (as in exceptional) sense, experience, and expertise. Sorry if it’s offensive to you to critique some of Warren’s rhetoric while praising other aspects of her program.