So did someone else in the cabinet, namely the treasury secretary, Tim Geithner. As hard as it is for most people to believe, it was Geithner who spoke the most forcefully and eloquently about the dangers of the Republican cult of economic failure.

The only problem was that no one was listening to him because they assumed that all of the fake news about him was true.

We try Liz, we really do. But by the time it's filtered through the Trump noise, and the media narrative, and the backwash of the internet, it's reduced to gruel. You're absolutely right that Biden had a talent for cutting through the filter and delivering the message intact. I think Sherrod Brown is also good at delivering that message, and think that he'd have been a far stronger pick for VP than Kaine on that basis. My hope is that he's able to assume more of a leadership role as we approach 2020.

Yeah, but be honest: no one is complaining about Canadians pouring across the border. It's not about immigrants, it's about dark immigrants. One of the few good things I have to say about Bush is that I think that he was honestly surprised that his party turned on him on the immigration issue - he was never really aware of the undercurrent of racism in his party, or like so many of his class, he thought it was something to be 'managed' rather than dealt with.

Can't say that about Trump. As clueless as he is, I think he deliberately courted the bigot vote from the very first day of his campaign. And when you think about it, the events following Charlottesville were the first time since that he was really chastened for it. Some thought that when he pushed Bannon out it was a sign that he understood his mistake, but then he turned right around and pardoned the bigot sheriff, so he obviously didn't learn dick.

LL&P

Guess which Obama administration cabinet member did the most to debunk that favourite theory of the Republican cult of economic failure?

The Democrats have a very persuasive argument to make on this issue and all the others. Why don't they make it?

The small guys, in enough numbers, are convinced they need to lower taxes on the wealthy to be better off?

Does anybody believe that enough Americans are that stupid?

No. This big problem is the Gini Co-efficient - the Democrats are the "science believers" whose education has allowed them to thrive - and the small guy thinks that it is has his/her expense and somebody is getting the promised American Dream and it isn't them. And when immigrants get the American Dream, it hurts even more.

Exactly. So, what is their freakin' problem, then??

Isn’t the inability to get anything done also obvious?

From a financial blogger I follow, who, let's just say, isn't a Hillary fan.

All the Democrats need to split the right wing into bickering sub-groups is to co-opt their message: "I'm for the small guy."

For Pete's sake, the Democrats actually are for the small guy.

Debate all you like with the English language...

No, I think that is what you do.

My only point was, when the messy confederate memorial statue issue takes on a Canadian face, we tend to take a slightly different route to statement.

LL&P

Here in Kingston a tradition is observed, a few days before Sir John A's birthday, a group of our Mohawk brethren, from the nearby Tyendinaga reservation, hop in a car, head to Sir John A MacDonald park in the center of town and throw paint on his statue. They use acrylic paint and it's quietly hosed off...Symbolism recognised, statement understood and see you next year lads. Now that's how you throw a civilised protest.

Sorry for the confusion in my last comment - the above quote is taken directly from JTCanuck's comment and was mistakenly added to my response above.

As for the quote itself - particularly symbolism recognized, statement understood and see you next year lads. Now that's how you throw a civilized protest - it sounds an awful lot like what is not being recognized here is the fact that Canada's aboriginal peoples (Metis, Inuit and First Nations) have many legitimate grievances that have yet to be recognized by successive non-aboriginal Canadian governments despite the constitutional protection of these rights.

I was shocked the other day by calls here in Canada for the removal of statues of Sir John A. MacDonald be reduced to scrap for integrating indigenous peoples of Canada into Canadian society, and few howls of state sanctioned genocide. (I loathe the word 'Indigenous' as the America's have no indigenous peoples, as they all travelled here from elsewhere!)

I'm not sure what to make of this as it's hard to detect tone in our little virtual reality here. But, it sounds like you think our first prime minister integrated indigenous peoples into Canadian society and that state-sanctioned genocide never happened here.

It's pretty clear how you feel about the word 'indigenous' with the implication that the original inhabitants of North America have no inherent land, treaty or aboriginal rights.

Of course, you would be quite wrong, on both counts.

Here in Kingston a tradition is observed, a few days before Sir John A's birthday, a group of our Mohawk brethren, from the nearby Tyendinaga reservation, hop in a car, head to Sir John A MacDonald park in the center of town and throw paint on his statue. They use acrylic paint and it's quietly hosed off...Symbolism recognised, statement understood and see you next year lads. Now that's how you throw a civilised protest.

Well said.

To the contrary: diplomatic initiatives, including economic sanctions, are a rational alternative to physical confrontation and saber-rattling (the right wing's preferred negotiating tactic). You can argue about their purpose (and we will), but you'd have to place them somewhere in the middle of the confrontation scale. You could argue that is more rightist than assuming that Putin was changing voter rolls in Illinois in order to take the burden off of oppressed and overworked State employees.

Of course, you have been informed and frequently reminded that I do not agree with your claim, so the question becomes why you would pretend it is unknown to you. What is your motivation?

If you don't recognize bait when you see it, I can't help you.

There isn't any actual evidence to support your meddling claim, so reasonable people should not agree with you.

What are you talking about? A veto-proof majority of both houses of Congress just agreed with me, many from the President's own party. All of our intelligence agencies agree with me. All of the intelligence agencies of Europe agree with me. Private firms have examined the evidence, and agree with me. Or rather, based on the preponderance of the evidence, I agree with them.

The real question is: why is the American far left defending the Putin regime? Why is Oliver Stone trying to paint this repressive dictator as an innocent, caught up in a series of Unfortunate Events?

Paula and I aren't the first progressives to notice and be concerned about the odd bipartisan congruence of the far left and far right lately. Liberalism is supposed to be about tolerance and liberty, not antisemitism and suppression.

To this end, the pragmatic progressives that you've derided as 'neo-liberal' have actually remained more faithful to liberal ideals than some who fashion themselves these days to be leftists. Your assertion that these two wings of the left are fundamentally incompatible is fundamentally self-defeating, as the American system isn't designed to be changed in the dramatic manner you seek; it is rather constructed to accommodate legislative compromise that leads to fundamental change, the most radical of which, Constitutional change, requires the consent of two-thirds of the legislature and two thirds of the States.

When the far left and the mainstream left work together, as they did to establish the modern safety net, the Voting Rights Act and other progressive legislation, everyone benefits. When the far left instead teams up with the far right in a fit of pique, or purity, we end up with abominations like the Tea Party and Trump.

Had Hillary been supported, rather than rejected by the left, we'd be arguing right now about the parameters of left-friendly policy initiatives like a rise in the Minimum Wage, rather than debating the prospect of supporting Putin's brutal bombing campaign in Syria. You know that's true.

Yup.

A

Democrats being more in favor of international confrontation and economic warfare IS MORE RIGHT WING.
Again the basics escape you.

Reason is based on evidence.
There isn't any actual evidence to support your meddling claim, so reasonable people should not agree with you.
Of course, you have been informed and frequently reminded that I do not agree with your claim, so the question becomes why you would pretend it is unknown to you. What is your motivation?

Creating conflict and advancing the right wing agenda in order to attack Trump is called shooting yourselves in the foot... but in order to grasp why, it requires a liberal/progressive/lefty point of view which the Democratic party and its defenders are incapable of embracing all too often.
I'll spell it out for you.
More gung ho than Trump is not progressive.

And your praise for bipartisanship... in this case, Dems working with Repubs to advance the right wing agenda... is only a "win" if that is your goal.
And it does seem to be your goal.

15

Wow.
So, what you're saying is that Schumer didn't even have to lift a finger to point to legislation to fix the VRA?
He dropped the ball even worse than CW told us about.

Dems did a horrible job of informing people of those efforts too. Clearly it wasn't just Schumer who failed to seize the perfect opportunity to inform and support the concept of justice in voting.

Or perhaps they were intentionally keeping it quiet to support Schumer's brilliant strategy?

“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs"
- Chuck Schumer

Just another one of the political idiots responsible for the dumpster fire that is the Democratic party.

A

http://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/calls-for-removal-of-john-a-macdonald-statue-in-victoria-amid-national-debate-1.3562652

LL&P

"-- to send a message to those being investigated by Meueller: I am the only one who can protect you!"

It might not have been smart to broadcast this message in the clear... it makes the case for obstruction of justice a lot more obvious. The Judicial Branch doesn't want to be neutered.

Trump wanted it to be clear to all involved that he will reward the loyalty that is shown to him. Trump cannot allow Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, or his sons to put protecting themselves before protecting him.

Trump doesn't trust anyone at this point and he's becoming more and more isolated : he has chosen not to attend events that the President typically hosts (the W.H. Correspondent's Dinner, the Kennedy Center Honors Gala, throwing out the first pitch at Washington Nationals ball game).

Of course that might be because he wouldn't be able to guarantee that only cheering fans would be allowed in at those events, and Trumple-thin-skin cannot handle being boo'ed!

Bannon is no longer around. Priebus is gone. Even the guy responsible for creating Trump's daily affirmations quit this past week. Trump's feeling all alone! Maybe little Donnie's looking into the eclipse was an attempt to blind himself so he can get out of this job?!?! It's a mad, mad world!

Let's see what the google has to say - oh, look:

H.R.2978 - Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2017 filed 07/17/2017 by Rep. Terri Sewell of Alaska in the Judiciary Committee

H.R.2867 - Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015
same sponsors as above, Introduced 06/24/2015, Discharged 6/15/2016

S.1659 - Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015
filed 06/24/2015 by Sen. Patrick Leahy, VT.

There was also a Voting Rights Amendment Act filed January 15, 2014 by sponsors Sensenbrenner, Leahy and Conyers.

So no, Democrats haven't been sitting on their hands on this issue at all.

And how, pray tell, does that qualify as 'more right wing than Trump'? Do you not agree that Russia's meddling in our election more than qualifies them for sanctions? Do you not agree that Trump had to be dissuaded from firing Mueller? First bipartisan thing the Congress has done in a while - that's a win in itself!

Ugh.
CW was right.

Actually, Dems should have had an updated VRA ready to go the day the ruling destroying it came down.

10

Yes. Dems showing they are more right wing than Trump is a victory for the Democratic party top to bottom.

A

Hope you are both well.

A

Nancy Pelosi virtually always delivers on the House side -- kudos to her. Here's hoping they prevail in the upcoming budget battles.

And somehow, Congress managed to shove the Russia-Iran sanctions bill that limited the president's power to fire the Special Prosecutor down Trump's throat, even convincing him that a veto was futile. That's legislative Jujitsu at its finest, and I hope that we see more of it.

An obvious solution, one of many. It's just possible that Schumer didn't suggest the legislative remedy yet because he knows that McConnell would make sure it never sees the light of day, as things stand now. This might, however, be a good time to draft an updated VRA, just so that we're ready when the time comes. The GOP's recent Healthcare debacle should be all the motivation we need to do that.

Our thoughts and prayers are with you and all of the Houston area this weekend! Stay safe -- there is nothing you own that is worth more than your life!

-Russ

Gorka out and Arpaio pardoned right after you posted.

Excellent column.
Good praise and ridicule of Schumer.

A