A long overdue Civil War is coming to the Democratic Party

Before I talk about the Democrats, let me just say that if Trump loses (and it appears that he will), the GOP will descend into a civil war that will make the Democrat's civil war look mild in comparison. Trump's hyper-loyal base has gone off the deep end, immersing itself in konspiracy theories while rejecting logic and fact-based reality. It's not a group that will simply accept their hero losing.
Also Republicans have long practiced the art of never admitting when they're wrong. Doubling-down on bad ideas isn't just the default for Repubs, it's the law. This is not a formula that can accept having reality telling you that you are wrong.

The Democrats have the opposite problem. The party leadership has open contempt for its base. People like Pelosi and Hoyer hate their own voters so much that they are willing to give the Republicans what they want, against the wishes of progressives, out of spite.

Pelosi may have been gracious during the sit-in, but her contempt for the CPC’s priorities had been palpable since the 116th Congress convened. In January, the newly gaveled House speaker told Rolling Stone, “Medicare for All is not as good a benefit as the Affordable Care Act,” drawing upon her conviction that the proposals for universal health care distracted from her efforts to protect the Affordable Care Act from Republican attempts to dismantle it. She cited the more than $30 trillion price tag that a libertarian policy center had tied to Sanders’ Senate version of the bill and scoffed, “How do you pay for that?” (With the headline “Women Shaping the Future,” that issue of Rolling Stone featured a portrait of Pelosi beaming alongside Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, and new Connecticut Rep. Jahana Hayes on the cover.)

A month later, Pelosi heralded the Green New Deal as the “green dream or whatever they call it—nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?” At the symbolically important 100-days benchmark, Pelosi joined Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes and distanced herself from her progressive colleagues. “That’s, like, five people,” Pelosi told Stahl.

pelosi_0.PNG
Slate noticed the Dem leadership's public dismissal of progressives more than a year ago, and drew an obvious conclusion.

Republican House leaders didn’t always feel it was electorally useful to pursue, say, a hard-line immigration strategy, but the right-wing bloc of the caucus used its leverage, often, to ensure they did. And the Republican “establishment” equivalent of any one of these comments—it’s just a few of them; the green dream or whatever—would have sparked an incredible backlash from the GOP’s base and those backbenchers. Pelosi must not be feeling such a backlash, because she keeps casually tossing backhanded remarks the left’s way. For top Democrats, what passes for restraint is when aides use anonymity to crudely trash-talk the left wing of the caucus: “What we’re here to do is get something done, not introduce legislative proposals that are Bernie Sanders’ wet dreams,” one senior Democratic aide told Politico last week.

Pelosi might only really consider changing her posture toward the emboldened left flank of the party if the left flank of the party emboldens.

pelosi2.PNG
Pelosi and the Dem leadership aren't going to give progressives a damn thing. They don't feel that it is necessary to even show a modicum of respect to the Left.
In this way, they are just like Trump - they're bullies. And bullies only respect power.

pelosi3.PNG

Fortunately, progressives have been slowly building up a political infrastructure and racking up an impressive string of wins, outside of AOC.
You probably aren't aware of this growing trend because neither party wants to talk about it.

For instance, the New York Independent Democratic Conference got annihilated by voters in 2018, who kicked six of the eight turncoats out of office.
Last month New Mexico Democrats did the exact same thing to their turncoats.

They were known as the “Formidable Five.” Five conservative Democrats in the New Mexico Senate occasionally voted with Republicans to kill progressive bills, to the frustration of their House colleagues and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. “You get all these great House members sending bills over to the Senate, and the same five senators were working together to block the legislation,” says Griego, New Mexico state director for the Working Families Party and a former Democratic state senator.

On June 2, four of the five were defeated in primaries, including Mary Kay Papen, the president pro tempore, and John Arthur Smith, who has served for 32 years and chairs the Finance Committee.

Kicking four of five senior politicians to the curb isn't something that just happens. It's not an event that mysteriously fell out of the sky. Grassroots activists worked hard to make this happen.
The Left has made other notable gains, such as six democratic socialists are now Chicago city aldermen.

However, the most impressive gains have been in Pennsylvania, where four DSA-backed candidates won statewide races in 2018. Leftists won big in Pennsylvania again in 2019. Then just four weeks ago, Pennsylvania voters punched the Democratic establishment in the mouth yet again, for the third election in a row.
I think Pennsylvania voters are trying to tell the Democrats something.

In West Virginia, those indomitable public school teachers first decided to take over their union, and have now turned their attention to the state government (defeating the president of the West Virginia Senate).

In my 40 years of political awareness I have never seen the Left so active, nor so successful.

At the start of the last decade, Republicans were challenged in primaries by candidates aligned with the Tea Party or other factions. Now, it’s Democrats who have to watch their left flanks. That started to be evident in 2018, from the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over a veteran member of Congress, to the defeat of numerous top Democrats in the Maryland Senate.

“There was a long period of time when there wasn’t that challenge from the left,” Goldstein says. “Having a more organized progressive movement electorally is a huge development.”

There's a major difference between of reaction to the Tea Party and the current Progressive Insurgency.
The GOP almost immediately co-opted the Tea Party movement. It used it's energy, and within a couple election cycles it was corrupted and spent.

The Democrats, OTOH, view the Progressive Insurgency like the French aristocracy saw the French peasants in 1789 - contempt, scorn, and bewilderment at why the lower classes are making such a fuss. They not only don't feel the need to compromise with the Left, they don't even feel the need to understand it.

In July 2019, Fox News reporter Brooke Singman quoted a senior Democratic source as saying of the Justice Democrats: “No one is afraid of those nerds. They don't have the ability to primary anyone.” Bowman isn’t the only example of how this sentiment has been proven wrong. In March, progressive challenger Marie Newman—also a member of the Justice Democrats—ousted right-wing Democratic incumbent Dan Lipinski in Illinois.

This hubris on the part of the Dem establishment is actually a backhanded gift. It prevents the Democratic Party from co-opting and corrupting the progressive movement, unlike what happened to the Tea Party.

pelosi4.PNG

pelosi5.PNG

Even before the many victories by the Left this month, Pelosi has found it necessary to go around her own party in D.C. in order to keep pushing through the neoliberal agenda.
Look at what Pelosi did just this week.

“Total swamp move,” one DC lobbyist said this afternoon.

House leader Nancy Pelosi just made sure that a vote to leave the World Trade Organization would not be taken up by this congress, going against other Democrats that think it’s time the U.S. considers leaving the multilateral trade body.

What sort of party leader has to go around her own party? In Congress! Not just going against her own voters, but also against other politicians in her party who are beginning to feel the heat.
What this bullheaded intransigence is going to do is prevent other less arrogant establishment Dems from compromising with the grassroots, thus creating a very clean split in the party starting in January of next year. Because the Progressive Insurgency, unlike in 2019, will have won enough races and have enough members in Congress, that they won't be just an oddity for the news media.
They will be a voting block large enough that it can do the one thing that Pelosi actually respects - exercising political power.

Share
up
33 users have voted.

Comments

over here the establishment Dems and their tame media said Newman didn't have a chance. Then were silent after the primary. You would think this would be big news, but "No" Coronavirus 24/7.

Now, will she win in November? The district is mostly Chicago and hasn't voted (R) (I'm guessing) since the 1950's. It is very conservative Catholic. Lipinski inherited the district from his father. Last time an actual Nazi opposed him. Really. A member of the American Nazi Party. I don't think he (the Nazi) got many Jewish votes, and those Polish Catholics probably voted for Lipinski. There are more black and brown voters these days, but they rarely vote (R). Hispanic voters used to split almost evenly but that was pre-Trump. Trump has made it clear that his problem is not with illegal immigrants but any nonwhite immigrants, particularly anyone brown.
Newman should have smooth sailing if she doesn't rest and do nothing like Lipinski. anti-abortion anti-labor, with Dems like Lipinski you don't need any (R)'s.

up
12 users have voted.

We are so screwed.

@The Voice In the Wilderness

Then were silent after the primary. You would think this would be big news

You know who hasn't commented on the big progressive wins this week?
Pelosi and Hoyer.
Not only do they not have an opinion, but the news media hasn't felt it necessary to ask them about it.
Hmmm.

up
23 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

At some point Joe Biden will have to show his ugly face, and when he does, his ratings will descend pretty quickly. Right now he's doing well because The Donald is embarrassing himself pretty badly and he's hiding in a basement.

This is the race, of ALL the races, in which both of the major-party candidates are so bad that it's an open invitation for someone with brains to step in and say "I can beat both of you." Yet nobody wants to step up for fear of being a "spoiler." Howie Hawkins even said he wasn't a spoiler. All the liberals want to paint Joe Biden as this great liberal alternative to Donald Trump, but he's nothing of the sort, he's a liar, he's a horrible campaigner, he has a small fraction of Trump's money, and he's lost before for reasons which will pop up between now and November. His agenda is probably 85% of what Trump's been doing already, though it's hard to tell because one has no idea of whether or not anything he says is true.

Even the People's Party is postponing their most serious efforts until after the election. And the People's Party is the brainchild of Nick Brana, who is so low on the totem pole that he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page.

All the cool kids looked at the results from New York and Kentucky and said "we're winning!" Okay so at this rate the progressives will control Congress maybe in a couple of decades? And by then the weather in Portland will be like what it is now in Los Angeles?

I'm seeing a lot of room for radical change and a lot of people whose creativity could be used for the sake of a less-sh*tty outcome, and all of this energy still looks like it will run into the same neoliberal (D) versus neoliberal (R) dynamic after 2020. Real change is not here, yet.

up
25 users have voted.

"Faith in philosophy means the refusal to permit fear to stunt in any way one's capacity to think." -- Max Horkheimer

@Cassiodorus all the children of the world's fates depend upon Joe Biden dying soon and Bernie Sanders getting the nomination.

up
3 users have voted.

@Battle of Blair Mountain
Sheepdog or Judas goat. I don't care which. I don't want a President that quits when there is a little bad news.

up
4 users have voted.

We are so screwed.

Steven D's picture

@Cassiodorus @Cassiodorus If you want my vote, then you don't say shit like I'm not a spoiler.

up
3 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

@Cassiodorus @Cassiodorus isn't true

he has a small fraction of Trump's money,

Actually he has a large fraction of Trump's $$$, namely about 60-65%. And the Con had a head start of months on fundraising.

Money won't be a problem for Biden. As long as he's reached a certain amount, which is certain, and he's in the ballpark of the other side's war chest, this won't be an issue. And Biden benefits from effective ads being paid for and produced by a nifty NeverTrump R group, Lincoln Republicans.

Right now he's doing well because The Donald is embarrassing himself pretty badly and he's hiding in a basement.

Biden did well in the primaries, pre-virus, by doing only light campaigning if not quite totally in the basement. And Trump is suffering being in the daily news headlights by his not only embarrassing but bizarre (WestPoint) behavior and peculiar scary pronouncements. All that free media and it's working against him, as a segment of former Donald supporters are waking up apparently to what a dangerous, callous whack job he is. He is losing support with older voters and whites generally.

He knows he's in electoral trouble, but is too stubborn or psychologically incapable of changing course. That sounds like a bit of a mental case to me.

And I can't see him easily stepping aside if/when he loses. Too much a blow to his fragile psyche, and puts him suddenly at legal risk. I see him going to Plan B -- election rigging -- or even to Plan C -- just claim his loss was due to election rigging by the Ds and refuse to leave office.

up
2 users have voted.

@wokkamile the lincoln republicans aren't anti trump, they are the same folks who ran adds against Max Chambliss. They make money via donations from people who hate Trump, most $ goes to the people who run it. and some to the creative types that make you tubes that appeal to people who were never going to vote for trump in the first place. They are simply selling you tube videos for donations.

up
0 users have voted.
Creosote.'s picture

@Cassiodorus
And not in the Rising video either.
I think Bye-Done will get a few months of coverup, but his mental condition is what you might call reverse-progressive.
Then the warhawks and already bought out Dems will "just" step in. Then what?

up
2 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@Creosote.

Hillary being the power behind Biden if he wins?

And this is the video she is talking about in the 1st one.

"Then what?"

My thoughts are that Biden will only be a figurehead and only serve a few months before he has to step down to spend more time with his family and either Hillary steps in or his VP will who I believe will be Kambama or Kamillary, but the other people in his administration will be running their own departments. Presidenting by Committee. T-hee.

up
2 users have voted.

“You know me. Do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?” - Joe Biden 8/31/2020

The Liberal Moonbat's picture

What makes you think Trump will lose?

I know he's got all sorts of albatrosses around his neck (he's the designated 'heel', after all), but considering the "opposition", my money's on him.

Hell, I'd give a third-party dark-horse competitive odds with Obama's Sin Biden; remember how *nearly* everyone felt in October 2016? Stranger things have happened....

up
13 users have voted.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.

@The Liberal Moonbat
Trump is losing in every poll by historic margins.
Can/will that change? Maybe. IDK.
I'm not making a prediction. I'm only going by available facts.

up
6 users have voted.
The Liberal Moonbat's picture

@gjohnsit That's news to me...and if I may ask, how is that different from what the polls said about Hillary?

up
3 users have voted.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.

@The Liberal Moonbat
And the difference is the size.

up
2 users have voted.

@gjohnsit I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist.

up
6 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@The Liberal Moonbat

Here's a reality check for people who think Trump will be easy to beat in November. Only two incumbent presidents have been defeated for re-election since World War II: Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush.

Trump's approval ratings are 5 points better than Bush's and 7 points better than Carter's were at the same point in their re-election campaigns.

up
14 users have voted.

"Faith in philosophy means the refusal to permit fear to stunt in any way one's capacity to think." -- Max Horkheimer

The Liberal Moonbat's picture

@Cassiodorus @gjohnsit

This feels a little out of my hands now; I shall drink Clearly Canadian and see what arises when the statistician-hordes of Niflheim and Muspell collide.

up
2 users have voted.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.

@Cassiodorus had approval ratings in the low 30s, quite low. Trump doesn't need to get that low -- and that's doubtful given his cult-like loyal supporters -- to lose and by a fair-sized margin.

Note: Carter improved by 4 pct over his last approval rating, ending with 41% of the vote, while Poppy got a 5-pt improvement by the time of election, ending with 38% of the vote. Biden's camp should expect similar results -- final/close to election approval ratings will probably underestimate the incumbent's vote total by 4-5% points.

Biden's biggest problem will probably be avoiding overconfidence and complacency among voters. But that's a good problem to have. And it's likely they will not be repeating the arrogant attitude of the Hillary camp.

up
0 users have voted.

@Cassiodorus Nor did they have the endless series of foreign policy gaffes and, as a cherry on top, neither was impeached either. (Nor did they commit the even bigger crimes that the currently demented occupant should have been impeached for. Children in concentration camps, anyone?)

It doesn't mean Biden is a shoe-in but Black voters decided he was the vehicle to eliminate Trump from the White House by voting for him en masse in SC and on Super Tuesday. I have no reason to believe Democratic voter turnout will fall from the 2018 mid-terms, which was an anti-Trump wave.

What happens post-Trump depends on keeping people engaged and in the streets. Progressives fell into a coma after Obama won in 2008 and we not only have eight lost years, but followed by four years of Hell. (And not the mythical Christian kind, either.)

up
0 users have voted.
The Liberal Moonbat's picture

@SancheLlewellyn Like almost everything else horrible one can see under the Trump banner, the children in concentration camps were INHERITED.

If Biden has the gall to bring them up, all Trump needs to say is: "It's not MY fault your sainted boss handed them off to me."

ICE = George W Bush = DHS = PATRIOT ACT = Omnibus Counterterrorism Bill = ...

...OOPS.

up
3 users have voted.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.

@The Liberal Moonbat Trump and his people in the admin and at Fox want to peddle, but it's misleading. Under Obama, there were occasional times of immigrant overflow at the border where temporary facilities had to be devised, but unlike the callous Trump there was no official policy to separate children from their families and for months.

up
0 users have voted.
The Liberal Moonbat's picture

@wokkamile The "kids in cages" picture I saw was from the year 2014.

It seems to me that Trump is nothing but continuity for a pipeline fitted and planned by those before him, and his own contributions have been mere removal of figleaves.

up
0 users have voted.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.

@The Liberal Moonbat my cited article above:

The idea that this is simply a continuation of an Obama-era practice is "preposterous," said Denise Gilman, director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas Law School. "There were occasionally instances where you would find a separated family — maybe like one every six months to a year — and that was usually because there had been some actual individualized concern that there was a trafficking situation or that the parent wasn’t actually the parent."

Once custody concerns were resolved, "there was pretty immediately reunification," Gilman told NBC News. "There were not 2,000 kids in two months — it’s not the same universe," she added.

The Trump administration separated 1,995 children from 1,940 adults from April 19 to May 31 [2018], a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Sec

No continuation. Obama admin policy to keep families intact, no separation of children, unless in extraordinary situations as above. Trump admin routinely separated children from parents as a matter of policy.

Dunno about the pic from 2014 as I haven't seen it and don't know if it's been verified as authentic. Anyway, the above article does tend to rebut Trump/FoxNews claims about continuity.

up
3 users have voted.
Creosote.'s picture

@The Liberal Moonbat
as it did at the end of June, though with far fewer deaths and business failures.

up
0 users have voted.

and healthcare, it would probably stoke the fires of rebellion even higher should Trump win.

Considering it will be too late with either Biden or Trump in office, a full blown rebellion may be our only hope.

up
11 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@Battle of Blair Mountain

Bush woke up the anti war movement. Obama put it back to sleep. Bush watched as the banks crashed the global economy. Obama bailed them out and left it so they can do it again. Now it’s crashing under Trump, but it was set in motion by Clinton when he deregulated the banks. Biden wins and the left goes back to sleep. Caitlin wrote an essay on just that. Everything is going as planned.

up
7 users have voted.

“You know me. Do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?” - Joe Biden 8/31/2020

The Liberal Moonbat's picture

@snoopydawg The White House has somehow managed to acquire the properties of a really nasty addictive drug.

Your team has it? Everyone turns into happy, gormless blobs.

The other team has it? Everyone turns into raging, screechy Daleks.

up
2 users have voted.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.

interested in any party's civil war so much as concerned about what looks like a looming national civil war, one which we might be in the early stages right now with the ongoing protests over police and now the monument toppling. If we have one, or two, it would make sense that it's happening under the hyper-divisive Trump.

As for party dissension, the GOP has made its bed and now must sleep in it. They have become the party of know nothingism since the beginnings with Goldwater, then Reagan and Dubya, and now spectacularly with the colossally ignorant Trump. And in the past50 years they have become the white people's party, the New Confederate Party, starting with Nixon's Southern Strategy, which Reagan solidified and Trump has made overt and toxically dangerous. The stupidity of this party, with its rampant anti-science and anti-reason attitudes is almost off the charts. Ditto for its deep-seated racism, couched in rhetoric of lowering taxes, anti-government, and bogus concerns about "voter fraud". The GOP, to the extent it reflects anti-democracy attitudes and policies, is the one which poses a grave danger to our democratic system. They need a thorough defunding in the most severe way.

The Dems: things are changing, for the better, with the latest election results, which is a reminder that change can happen quickly, given certain circumstances, which we currently are experiencing. They badly need to replace their gerontocratic leadership in Congress, but short of that happening in the next year, the current group of moderate establishment elders are probably feeling the progressive heat as it exposes their ossified and out of touch safe centrism. People are demanding major change, and I doubt if such major reform consciousness will be confined just to policing and historical monuments.

With the left finally asserting itself effectively, the leaders, including Biden, will find it increasingly hard to avoid acting on progressive concerns. Thus I wouldn't expect another 4 yrs of cautious Obamaism from Biden, as the political pressure from below will be too strong. Unlike the protected Obama, worshipped by the left for his historical status, the more vulnerable white male Biden will have to deliver real change.

up
4 users have voted.

@wokkamile
Biden only wants one term, he won't be especially vulnerable to political pressure.

up
2 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@FuturePassed

and isn't merely a meat ventriloquist's dummy for whatever cabal wants to use him for whatever nefarious purposes.

This is NOT a safe assumption.

up
10 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

travelerxxx's picture

@TheOtherMaven

Right now, and until I see evidence otherwise, I have to assume that:
1) He is not competent
2) He is being used as various ventriloquist's dummies.

Maybe if they let him out of the basement to stand in front of an audience and speak for longer than 30 seconds, or field questions from actual journalists (not softball tossers) for an hour, I might (maybe) believe (1) and (2) are not true.

Even if he manages that, I still could never support him due to his past:
1) History of outrageous lies
2) History of writing and supporting the most horrendous of laws

I cannot support a serial liar. Nor can I support someone who has made my life and that of my friends, harder. Trump is these too, of course. However, the scales are tipped when I consider the risk of war, particularly nuclear war.

As bad as he is, Trump is still to the left of Biden on war. Hard to believe, but there it is. Consider the just the last few days and the Democrats being all over the "Russians paying bounties for dead Americans" lie. All singing in unison, all over the USA. It's one of the most dangerous and stupid moves I've seen lately.

up
8 users have voted.

@travelerxxx have gotten worse under Trump, including US-Russia relations. And as with this latest propaganda story from US intel, he is under the gun constantly to show he's not Putin's puppet, which leads him to do unwise, dangerous things, as for instance withdrawing from nuclear treaties and green lighting provocative Nato military exercises on Russia's border.

As a demonstrably erratic and marginal personality prone to want to show how tough he can be, he's also about the worst type of person to have control over the nuclear arsenal. He's Nixon's pretend Madman made real. Biden, for all his stupid and cowardly neocon attitudes, at least has a much better grasp of FP overall and despite some clear signs of early-stage dementia which affects his speech and memory doesn't show the kind of disturbing psychological mindset that Don the Con puts on display daily.

That said, the current choice is what it is. Depends heavily on how you view Don the Con and the importance of getting him out. I think it's hugely important. Many public progressives agree with me. Everyone else here disagrees. So be it. I'm very used to being a minority of one on this board.

up
1 user has voted.
travelerxxx's picture

@wokkamile

I would agree that Trump's ego and boundless narcissism make him very successible to pressure. I'm sure the latest "bounty for scalps" gambit has been designed with this in mind specifically. Knowing this is almost certainly true, I then turn to see just who is pushing this newest dangerous trope. And what do we find when we look? Centrist/right-wing Democrats and their lapdog media organs. As far as I can see, the Democrats are totally unified in regard to pushing this newest scam.

As you point out, Trump has been "... under the gun constantly to show he's not Putin's puppet." A dangerous predicament for certain when he's being goaded into "... unwise, dangerous things." In fact, I would offer that it's almost insanely reckless to do this; constantly poking at Trump to try to get him to react in a warlike fashion against a nation having the capability to turn the entire USA to ashes in about half an hour.

Unhinged neocons are a large part of this stupidity, but the Democrats – including (in fact, especially) Biden – are right there with them, part and parcel. The incredible danger these types of provocations risk makes it impossible for me to support those who promulgate them. The Democrats have calculated that Trump will not snap, only look bad. Taking that chance, which puts the entire nation at risk, is well beyond foolhardy. It's practically insane.

up
5 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@travelerxxx

to Ukraine even though Obama didn’t send them. And they aren’t even being allowed to be used on the 'front' line and last I heard they are still sitting in a warehouse. Sure people say it was because he asked for a favor from zelensky for dirt on Biden, but he actually wanted to know about the people there who helped Hillary get dirt on Trump’s campaign.

But here is where things get fun when Biden and Trump start going after each other. The prosecutor that Biden got fired will be at Trumps disposal to talk about all the shady deals Biden, Hunter, Schiff and many other democrats got after the coup. That is if Trump wants to use it. I question how much of the Russian propaganda he has been playing along with. He could have nipped it in the bud from day one of his presidency by releasing the information from the NSA that would have proved or disproved Russia hacking the DNC’s computers. Why didn’t he? Same reason Obama didn’t release his birth certificate for 3 years and let Trump blab about it. DISTRACTION. This is so obvious looking back at it.

But if Trump wants to he can bury Biden. Lots of new information has come out. Then there’s the investigation Durham is doing on the origins of Russia Gate and what the FBI did. How far will Barr let it go?

up
4 users have voted.

“You know me. Do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?” - Joe Biden 8/31/2020

travelerxxx's picture

@snoopydawg

True enough about distraction. Look at the benefits the 1% have reaped while people were out chasing their tails with foolishness such as Russiagate, Birther-gate, Qanon, ... ad nauseum. We Americans are so easily propagandized.

Now we've got people running around like their hair is on fire due to the absolute horsesh*t "bounty" story put out by the war mongers – who are clearly worried that peace might break out if they don't stoke up some hysteria.

up
4 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@travelerxxx

Look at what is being loaded next in the Russian/Trump/Comey/FBI/Hillary/Obama election saga.

Comey Miniseries Gets Pre-Election Airdate, After Director Pleads For Chance To Sway Voters

Further down in the letter, Ray envisioned billboards screaming, “Comey Vs. Trump” in the heat of the election battle.

“The Comey Rule” is based on former FBI director James Comey’s recent memoir, “A Higher Loyalty” and “more than a year of additional interviews with a number of key principals,” according to Showtime PR.

The source material suggests the production will be highly critical of President Trump. Through his book and other public platforms, Comey has frequently reviled the president while justifying his own conduct throughout the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation of now-debunked allegations of collusion between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign

On June 24, the day after Ray's letter was published by Deadline, Showtime announced "The Comey Rule" would air on consecutive nights Sept. 27-28. Showtime gave no reason for the time shift, but the news came the same day as two breaking news items tied to Comey’s tenure.

- A federal appeals court ordered charges against Michael Flynn, Trump’s former National Security Adviser, to be dropped. Gen. Flynn had previously plead guilty to making false statements in connection with an offshoot of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation.

- In aother development, declassified notes taken by anti-Trump former FBI agent Peter Strzok appeared to reveal that Comey thought Flynn's late-2016 phone calls to then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were "legit” long before federal agents quizzed Flynn on the matter.

The news further erodes Comey’s narrative related to both Gen. Flynn and the Russian investigation. Last year’s Mueller Report failed to tie Trump to impeachable acts. More recently, we learned public officials who warned cable news viewers about Trump’s alleged Russian ties confessed under oath they lacked evidence to back up their charges.

Jeff Daniels stars as Comey, while Brendan Gleeson portrays President Trump.

“The Comey Rule” will air Sept. 27 and 28 at 9 p.m. EST on Showtime.

This will hit the air waves right around the time Durham releases his report on the origins of Russia Gate and he will either nail Comey and the FBI to the wall or say that they were right to open up an investigation into Trumps ties to Russia. Isn’t there a rule against doing something that gives either party an advantage in elections? But seriously this will just further distract the country right in the middle of the election. But how much of a normal election are we gonna see since the country will still be dealing with COVID and economic turmoil?

Vote:

1-OMG

2-LMAO

3- BOTH

up
4 users have voted.

“You know me. Do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?” - Joe Biden 8/31/2020

travelerxxx's picture

@snoopydawg

Well, I'd certainly not heard about this TV program. As for my vote, I'd have to vote for the nonexistent #4.

4-WTF?

Obviously, the Hollywood types behind this are of the same ilk who made such propaganda slime as Top Gun and American Sniper. Do they think Americans are really that stupid? Don't answer that...

I suspect the only real fallout from such an obvious hit piece so close to the election will be blowback from enraged right-wingers. If they were thinking of maybe not voting, this might just cause them to rethink that.

up
4 users have voted.

@travelerxxx that the usual centrist/center-left Ds, not just the conservative ones, are running with this latest Putin nontroversy. And when Rachel Maddow repeats it breathlessly and unskeptically, the liberal Ds lap it up.

I am currently in some hot water for challenging a touchy, online expert (in another field) who has been touting this story to her readers. It's a reminder that on some issues, Ds and libs can be as stubbornly resistant to facts and reason as RW Rs are on many subjects.

Just to add: there is little push back against these false Russia stories apart from the usual small group of indie journalists and bloggers. Last I checked only one pol, Tulsi, has firmly stood up against the lies. And the rest of the progressive pols? Bernie and similar? Half-hearted skepticism at best, and only after offering up the usual denunciations of Putin in ways designed to please the national security PTB.

It's as plain as day that if pols don't feel threatened from their left flank, they are likely to seek shelter towards the right. There is just no large enough movement on the left against this sort of regime-change prep propaganda. This lack of serious dissent might one day soon come back to haunt us all.

up
5 users have voted.
travelerxxx's picture

@wokkamile

I am currently in some hot water for challenging a touchy, online expert (in another field) who has been touting this story to her readers.

Join the crowd. Most of us here have felt like that during the entire Russiagate fiasco.

Last I checked only one pol, Tulsi, has firmly stood up against the lies.

I didn't know that. Thank gawd, there's at least one.

This lack of serious dissent might one day soon come back to haunt us all.

This is my primary worry.

up
4 users have voted.

@FuturePassed what Biden wants as what he is capable of given his current condition. I doubt if he's good for more than one term, if barely that. There would be enormous pressure brought to bear if it's obvious that he needs to step aside. This would be done before the 2024 primaries to allow his VP a/o others to toss their hats into the ring.

But as to political pressure before that on policy issues, he's already feeling pressure on police reform to get him to go further, which he needs to do if a bit short of full defunding of police, which probably isn't politically wise. Also on M4A, where the progressive leaders, Bernie et al, need to continue to press hard. Just tinkering with Obamacare won't be sufficient. Political pressure from the left on these issues would continue in a Biden admin, particularly if Dems win control of the senate and progressive candidates win more seats in both chambers in Nov.

I see the past preference of Dems for safe centrism and moderate politics as no longer being operative in a new bolder era of change. The old ways of Obamaist incrementalism and half-measures will be viewed as timid and out of step with the times.

On police reform, it would be terrible optics to select someone like Kamala Harris, former prosecutor and all her sorry track record which Tulsi exposed in the debates. Liz Warren wouldn't have these problems and does have a good rep in the AA community.

up
1 user has voted.

you are right. I can not believe the people vote against their own interests over and over. It's apparent that neither the republicans or the democrats have any interests in the people, other than conning them into voting r or d.

up
4 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

I'm guessing they will be these progressives who have just won victories, as well as people like AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar?

Are these politicians going to continue to vote for Nancy Pelosi to lead the Democrats in the House, or will they oppose her? If they have counterparts in the Senate (other than Bernie), will those counterparts vote against Chuck Schumer? Will they actually remove Perez?

If they do vote for Pelosi, will they be honest about it and admit that they had to vote for her, else they would be politically sidelined to the point that they could not politically function? Or will they use centrist-speak and tell us that they voted for Pelosi because "she was the most progressive candidate for the job available?"

If they do vote for someone else, will it be an Obama-type who promotes the same policies as Bush while making inspirational speeches?

up
3 users have voted.

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones." - Fiver

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem