27
   

Why I left the Democratic Party

 
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 09:36 am
@Lash,
Politico wrote:
Since its founding in 2007, the Liberal Gun Club, has served as a refuge for a group of people who occupy a lonely no man's land in the middle of the nation's gun wars. They wince at fellow liberals who seem to want to ban everything--guns, ammunition, bump stocks--but don't know the first thing about how guns work. But they're disgusted by the paranoid, left-baiting rhetoric pumped out by the NRA. Mostly, over the years, they've kept to themselves.

Interesting. I'd never heard of them before.

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/stances-on-regulation/

My main question is, what is this paranoid, left-baiting rhetoric that the NRA is supposedly pumping out?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 11:51 am
@maporsche,
You advocate what’s important to you.

Me, too.

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 12:00 pm
@maporsche,
I don’t believe you.

You grew up with a silver spoon in your privileged mouth, and got everything you asked for. Shielded by helicopter parents from the deplorables.

Just love ya Porsche.

maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 12:00 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

I don’t believe you.

You grew up with a silver spoon in your privileged mouth, and got everything you asked for. Shielded by helicopter parents from the deplorables.

Just love ya Porsche.


Wow. Shocked
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 12:08 pm
@Lash,
I am not even sure what Big Pharma is; I really have no views on it.

Obviously the cost of health care is too high. I didn't think Obamacare went far enough but it was better than what we had before. At least it was before Trump and republicans started sabotaging it. More Americans got health insurance than they did before Obamacare. If it ever comes to a time where it looks like there are enough votes in the senate and the house and a liberal in the white house for universal health care, I would be all for it.

Obviously I think what happened in Flint was terrible but I admit I didn't get into the details so I am not sure of whose was at fault.

I don't know what Monsanto poisoning is, but going by the other replies to the question, is it pesticide chemicals? I think research should be done to find out how to control pest without harsh chemical.

I am against the loosening of regulations and I have stated I am disappointed in the dems who voted for it.

I have been against the unjust justices system for minorities for years. I think we need a comprehensive overhaul.

Most of those are headline topics of recent events. Not really a litmus list of issues you must see alike in order to be a liberal; not sure I want to be the kind of progressive you claim to be.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 12:10 pm
@maporsche,
Kind of reverse elitist, huh?

I have read post of yours in the past where you talked about your growing up years. Don't worry about it.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 12:26 pm
I agree that Obamacare was a positive first step. I also agree the Republicans are taking it apart, a piece at a time. What has me puzzled is why so many Democrats will speak out for Obamacare, but balk at universal health care, the only logical next step.
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 12:32 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I agree that Obamacare was a positive first step. I also agree the Republicans are taking it apart, a piece at a time. What has me puzzled is why so many Democrats will speak out for Obamacare, but balk at universal health care, the only logical next step.


I think any hesitation you're seeing is because universal health care is not the next logical step from employer based and Obamacare private insurance. It's many more steps away.

I'd vote for many versions of a UHC plan if it were on the table today, but I'd also vote for these next steps.

1) Increase subsidies for more income levels
2) Open up public option or medicare buy-in
3) Several methods of bringing down prescription drug costs
4) Working towards decoupling healthcare from employment

There are other things I'd like to do as well, but here's a start off the top of my head.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 12:34 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
I agree that Obamacare was a positive first step. I also agree the Republicans are taking it apart, a piece at a time. What has me puzzled is why so many Democrats will speak out for Obamacare, but balk at universal health care, the only logical next step.

How is Obamacare not universal health care?
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 01:15 pm
@edgarblythe,
I balked during the primaries because I didn't see the sense in throwing out the baby with the bathwater by starting over from scratch given I knew it was going to be a fight in congress even if Bernie or Hillary won. I thought then, why not fix what is wrong with Obamacare rather than starting over?

But now, after it's been picked apart, might be better to start fresh and if we do that, we should have universal health care and all health care would be relatively free.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 01:43 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
But now, after it's been picked apart, might be better to start fresh

The best way to do universal health care in America is with a market-based system.

The Obamacare exchanges are a good framework for such a system. Better to build on an existing framework than to scrap it and then rebuild the exact same thing.


revelette1 wrote:
and if we do that, we should have universal health care

How is Obamacare not universal health care?


revelette1 wrote:
and all health care would be relatively free.

No such thing as free health care. It has to be paid for one way or another.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 02:08 pm
@maporsche,
I believe you, your story doesn't stink of bullshit, unlike others on this thread.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 03:25 pm
There is only one way to fix Obamacare. Any other fixes are like putting bandaids over broken limbs.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 03:26 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
There is only one way to fix Obamacare. Any other fixes are like putting bandaids over broken limbs.


Never let anyone tell you that you lack imagination Edgar. You've got loads.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 07:32 pm
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/20180308/full-house-anticipated-to-see-bernie-sanders-in-lubbock

Bernie Sanders: the only hardworking politician in the US.

Local Democrats are advising people to show up early if they wish to see U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders speak in Lubbock Saturday.

Sanders, an independent from Vermont who sought the Democratic party nomination for president in 2016, is scheduled to speak in the banquet hall at the Lubbock Memorial Civic Center, which has a capacity of 1,000 people. T.G. Caraway of Our Revolution Texas South Plains/Panhandle, said he’s heard enough chatter to believe more than that number are planning to attend.

The slate of speakers and musicians is scheduled to start at 1 p.m., and Caraway said attendees should plan on being in line by noon — including people that RSVP’d for the event online. For people who can’t get in, Caraway said they will set up a video stream in another room at the Civic Center.

This is a free event, but Our Revolution will be asking for donations of at least $5.

Among the list of scheduled speakers are Our Revolution President Nina Turner, former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower, and Caraway, a candidate for Lubbock County Commissioner Pct. 4. It’s also been announced that Musicians Andy Wilkinson and Bob Livingston will perform.

Sanders, according to a press release, is visiting cities in Texas and Arizona on this trip, both states that President Donald Trump won in 2016.

0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 07:52 pm
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/health-care-bait-switch/

On the campaign trail in January of 2016, Hillary Clinton told Iowa voters that Bernie Sanders’ single payer health care proposal was an idea whose time would never come. “People who have health emergencies can’t wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass,” said the presumed shoo-in for president. Two years later, one-third of Democrats in the Senate have endorsed Sanders’ Medicare for All Act and half the Democrats in the U.S. House have signed on to Rep. John Conyers’ Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, HR 676. Polls show 75 percent of Democrats favor “expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American,” and 31 percent of the public at-large wants health care to be the first problem the Democrats tackled if they win the White House in 2020.

Predictably, however, Hillary Clinton’s favorite think tank is still trying to make sure single payer health care never happens. The lavishly funded Center for American Progress (CAP) last week unveiled their counterfeit, sound-alike health care plan, dubbed Medicare Extra for All, whose sole purpose is to distract and confuse a public that is demonstrably “ready” for single payer. The CAP scheme, like Obamacare, keeps the private insurance corporations at the center of the money-stream, doesn’t cover everyone, charges fees, co-pays and premiums, doesn’t save much money, and would fail to provide millions with adequate coverage. “CAP’s plan maintains the current tiered system in which some people have private health insurance, those with the greatest needs have public health insurance, some people will have inadequate coverage and others will have no coverage at all,” writes Dr. Margaret Flowers, of Health Over Profit. “By offering a solution that sounds good to the uninformed—‘Medicare Extra for All’—but continues to benefit their Wall Street donors,” said Flowers, “Democrats hope to fool people or buy enough support to undermine efforts for NIMA,” or National Improved Medicare for All, the comprehensive single payer plan supported by the activists like Flowers.

National Improved Medicare for All would save half a trillion dollars a year on administrative costs and another $100 billion on reduced drug costs, according to Flowers. “The CAP plan maintains the complicated multi-payer system that we have today,” she said. “At best, it will only achieve 16% of the administrative savings of a single payer system and it will have less power to reign in the high costs of care.”

The CAP scheme would leave the link between employment and health coverage intact, keeping workers ultimately dependent on the whims of their bosses for healthcare coverage. “When people who have private health insurance lose their job or move, they risk losing their health insurance,” said Flowers. “NIMA creates a health system that covers everyone no matter where they are in the United States and its territories.”

The Obama-Scam, Repackaged

The Center for American Progress is running the same bait-and-switch con that Barack Obama played in the set-up to his Affordable Care Act. Bruce Dixon and I were introduced to Obama’s healthcare scam in June of 2003 when we engaged the then candidate for the U.S. Senate in a month-long telephone and email conversation, at The Black Commentator. At the time, Obama was trailing the field of candidates and in need of every Black vote in Illinois. Dixon and I had just learned that Obama had joined the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the corporate money-bag operation for the right wing of the party founded by white southern Democrats including Bill Clinton and Al Gore. On top of that, he’d recently removed his 2002 (mildly) anti-war speech from his campaign website, apparently to get in line with George Bush’s triumphal “Mission Accomplished” speech, the previous month. Obama denied that he’d become a member of the DLC, and claimed his website was undergoing “routine” updating. (Years later, when the war was clearly lost, Obama’s team would resurrect “The Speech” as proof of his early anti-war credentials.)

Dixon and I decided that the best way to determine if Obama should be in the DLC or not, would be to put him to a three-question “bright line” test on the issues of war, health care and U.S. membership in the NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. If the candidate answered all three questions correctly, then he should not be a member of the DLC. If he failed, then the DLC was where he belonged, and voters should make their decisions, accordingly.

We presented our bright line questions to Obama in the June 19, 2003, Cover Story of the publication:

1. Do you favor the withdrawal of the United States from NAFTA? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?

2. Do you favor the adoption of a single payer system of universal health care to extend the availability of quality health care to all persons in this country? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?

3. Would you have voted against the October 10 congressional resolution allowing the president to use unilateral force against Iraq?

Note that we specified “a single payer system of universal health care.”

Obama used weasel-language to fudge his answers to the Iraq War and NAFTA questions. On health care, he wrote:

“I favor universal health care for all Americans, and intend to introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end in the U.S. Senate, just as I have at the state level. My campaign is also developing a series of interim proposals—such as an expansion of the successful SCHIP program—so that we can immediately provide more coverage to uninsured children and their families.”

Obama left out the words “single payer.” Only after he became president, six years later, would it become clear that his definition of “universal” health care meant only that all Americans would be required to enroll in an insurance program—just as states require that all drivers be insured.

Despite his use of weasel-wording in all three answers, we at The Black Commentator gave Obama a passing grade. “BC is not seeking to martyr Barack Obama on a left-leaning cross,” we wrote.

(Our actual motive in 2003 was fear of being labeled “crabs in a barrel” for undermining the prospects of such an attractive, progressive-sounding, young Black up-and-coming politician—a failure of political nerve for which I will forever be ashamed.)

A year and a half later, in the week before Obama was sworn into the Senate, he told me that the country was not “ready” for single payer. But, if he really believed that, he would not have spent the next four years misleading the people through his calculated misuse of the term “universal.”

“Universal” was Obama’s bait-and-switch to confuse the public, much of which continued to wishfully assume that he favored some kind of single payer plan. Once he got in office—and after announcing that “all entitlements, including Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, would be “on the table” for cutting under his administration—Obama banished single payer advocates like Rep. Conyers from the White House and quite publicly allowed the for-profit healthcare corporations to write his Affordable Care Act, with its “universal” mandate that added many of millions of new “customers” for the industry.

The Democratic Leadership Council disbanded near the end of Obama’s first term in office. Faux-progressives claimed a victory. “One of the things that’s happening right now in Democratic politics is that progressives are winning the battle for the party,” said Progressive Congress president Darcy Burner. “The corporate-focused DLC type of politics isn’t working inside the Democratic party.”

That was nonsense. The DLC went out of business because it had won its battle for corporate hegemony in the party. By 2011, Obama had revealed himself as a full-blooded austerity (and war) president, and was still seeking his “Grand Bargain” with the Republicans. The “progressives” were defenestrated (thrown out of the White House windows) and humiliated in his first year, and were not to rise again until Bernie Sanders, the nominally non-Democrat, made his bid for the White House in 2016—with single payer healthcare at the tip of his spear.

Sanders’ version of single payer is “highly flawed,” said Health Over Profit’s Margaret Flowers, who is also co-director of Popular Resistance, but, “the fact that the Democrats are proposing something that sounds like NIMA means we are gaining power.” The legislation “calls for a four-year transition period, during which the newly improved Medicare would first insure all children and adults 55 or older, then expand gradually to cover all adults,” writes the Huffington Post.

The Sanders bill’s endorsers in the Senate include a number of obvious Trojan Horses, such as Cory Booker, a deeply reactionary politician who could have been the “first Obama” had he won prominent office just a few years sooner (see The Black Commentator, April 4, 2002, “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree.”) He was among 13 Democrats that voted against creating a reserve fund to allow Americans to import cheaper drugs from Canada, lamely claiming that it didn’t address consumer protection issues. Booker and others are joining the pro-single payer bandwagon to weaken it from the inside, while his allies in the Clinton camp and their Center for American Progress scheme to extend the life of for-profit healthcare under the Medicare brand.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is the greatest negative motivator for single payer. He last month proposed new rules that would allow sale of short-term insurance policies that omit “essential health benefits”—what Sen. Ron Wyden calls “junk insurance”—to allow the market to work its miracles. But the people are learning that the market will kill you.

Glen Ford is the executive editor of Black Agenda Report.
edgarblythe
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2018 06:57 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/health-care-bait-switch/

On the campaign trail in January of 2016, Hillary Clinton told Iowa voters that Bernie Sanders’ single payer health care proposal was an idea whose time would never come. “People who have health emergencies can’t wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass,” said the presumed shoo-in for president. Two years later, one-third of Democrats in the Senate have endorsed Sanders’ Medicare for All Act and half the Democrats in the U.S. House have signed on to Rep. John Conyers’ Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, HR 676. Polls show 75 percent of Democrats favor “expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American,”
and 31 percent of the public at-large wants health care to be the first problem the Democrats tackled if they win the White House in 2020.

Predictably, however, Hillary Clinton’s favorite think tank is still trying to make sure single payer health care never happens. The lavishly funded Center for American Progress (CAP) last week unveiled their counterfeit, sound-alike health care plan, dubbed Medicare Extra for All, whose sole purpose is to distract and confuse a public that is demonstrably “ready” for single payer. The CAP scheme, like Obamacare, keeps the private insurance corporations at the center of the money-stream, doesn’t cover everyone, charges fees, co-pays and premiums, doesn’t save much money, and would fail to provide millions with adequate coverage. “CAP’s plan maintains the current tiered system in which some people have private health insurance, those with the greatest needs have public health insurance, some people will have inadequate coverage and others will have no coverage at all,” writes Dr. Margaret Flowers, of Health Over Profit. “By offering a solution that sounds good to the uninformed—‘Medicare Extra for All’—but continues to benefit their Wall Street donors,” said Flowers, “Democrats hope to fool people or buy enough support to undermine efforts for NIMA,” or National Improved Medicare for All, the comprehensive single payer plan supported by the activists like Flowers.

National Improved Medicare for All would save half a trillion dollars a year on administrative costs and another $100 billion on reduced drug costs, according to Flowers. “The CAP plan maintains the complicated multi-payer system that we have today,” she said. “At best, it will only achieve 16% of the administrative savings of a single payer system and it will have less power to reign in the high costs of care.”

The CAP scheme would leave the link between employment and health coverage intact, keeping workers ultimately dependent on the whims of their bosses for healthcare coverage. “When people who have private health insurance lose their job or move, they risk losing their health insurance,” said Flowers. “NIMA creates a health system that covers everyone no matter where they are in the United States and its territories.”

The Obama-Scam, Repackaged

The Center for American Progress is running the same bait-and-switch con that Barack Obama played in the set-up to his Affordable Care Act. Bruce Dixon and I were introduced to Obama’s healthcare scam in June of 2003 when we engaged the then candidate for the U.S. Senate in a month-long telephone and email conversation, at The Black Commentator. At the time, Obama was trailing the field of candidates and in need of every Black vote in Illinois. Dixon and I had just learned that Obama had joined the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the corporate money-bag operation for the right wing of the party founded by white southern Democrats including Bill Clinton and Al Gore. On top of that, he’d recently removed his 2002 (mildly) anti-war speech from his campaign website, apparently to get in line with George Bush’s triumphal “Mission Accomplished” speech, the previous month. Obama denied that he’d become a member of the DLC, and claimed his website was undergoing “routine” updating. (Years later, when the war was clearly lost, Obama’s team would resurrect “The Speech” as proof of his early anti-war credentials.)

Dixon and I decided that the best way to determine if Obama should be in the DLC or not, would be to put him to a three-question “bright line” test on the issues of war, health care and U.S. membership in the NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. If the candidate answered all three questions correctly, then he should not be a member of the DLC. If he failed, then the DLC was where he belonged, and voters should make their decisions, accordingly.

We presented our bright line questions to Obama in the June 19, 2003, Cover Story of the publication:

1. Do you favor the withdrawal of the United States from NAFTA? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?

2. Do you favor the adoption of a single payer system of universal health care to extend the availability of quality health care to all persons in this country? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?

3. Would you have voted against the October 10 congressional resolution allowing the president to use unilateral force against Iraq?

Note that we specified “a single payer system of universal health care.”

Obama used weasel-language to fudge his answers to the Iraq War and NAFTA questions. On health care, he wrote:

“I favor universal health care for all Americans, and intend to introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end in the U.S. Senate, just as I have at the state level. My campaign is also developing a series of interim proposals—such as an expansion of the successful SCHIP program—so that we can immediately provide more coverage to uninsured children and their families.”

Obama left out the words “single payer.” Only after he became president, six years later, would it become clear that his definition of “universal” health care meant only that all Americans would be required to enroll in an insurance program—just as states require that all drivers be insured.

Despite his use of weasel-wording in all three answers, we at The Black Commentator gave Obama a passing grade. “BC is not seeking to martyr Barack Obama on a left-leaning cross,” we wrote.

(Our actual motive in 2003 was fear of being labeled “crabs in a barrel” for undermining the prospects of such an attractive, progressive-sounding, young Black up-and-coming politician—a failure of political nerve for which I will forever be ashamed.)

A year and a half later, in the week before Obama was sworn into the Senate, he told me that the country was not “ready” for single payer. But, if he really believed that, he would not have spent the next four years misleading the people through his calculated misuse of the term “universal.”

“Universal” was Obama’s bait-and-switch to confuse the public, much of which continued to wishfully assume that he favored some kind of single payer plan. Once he got in office—and after announcing that “all entitlements, including Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, would be “on the table” for cutting under his administration—Obama banished single payer advocates like Rep. Conyers from the White House and quite publicly allowed the for-profit healthcare corporations to write his Affordable Care Act, with its “universal” mandate that added many of millions of new “customers” for the industry.

The Democratic Leadership Council disbanded near the end of Obama’s first term in office. Faux-progressives claimed a victory. “One of the things that’s happening right now in Democratic politics is that progressives are winning the battle for the party,” said Progressive Congress president Darcy Burner. “The corporate-focused DLC type of politics isn’t working inside the Democratic party.”

That was nonsense. The DLC went out of business because it had won its battle for corporate hegemony in the party. By 2011, Obama had revealed himself as a full-blooded austerity (and war) president, and was still seeking his “Grand Bargain” with the Republicans. The “progressives” were defenestrated (thrown out of the White House windows) and humiliated in his first year, and were not to rise again until Bernie Sanders, the nominally non-Democrat, made his bid for the White House in 2016—with single payer healthcare at the tip of his spear.

Sanders’ version of single payer is “highly flawed,” said Health Over Profit’s Margaret Flowers, who is also co-director of Popular Resistance, but, “the fact that the Democrats are proposing something that sounds like NIMA means we are gaining power.” The legislation “calls for a four-year transition period, during which the newly improved Medicare would first insure all children and adults 55 or older, then expand gradually to cover all adults,” writes the Huffington Post.

The Sanders bill’s endorsers in the Senate include a number of obvious Trojan Horses, such as Cory Booker, a deeply reactionary politician who could have been the “first Obama” had he won prominent office just a few years sooner (see The Black Commentator, April 4, 2002, “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree.”) He was among 13 Democrats that voted against creating a reserve fund to allow Americans to import cheaper drugs from Canada, lamely claiming that it didn’t address consumer protection issues. Booker and others are joining the pro-single payer bandwagon to weaken it from the inside, while his allies in the Clinton camp and their Center for American Progress scheme to extend the life of for-profit healthcare under the Medicare brand.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is the greatest negative motivator for single payer. He last month proposed new rules that would allow sale of short-term insurance policies that omit “essential health benefits”—what Sen. Ron Wyden calls “junk insurance”—to allow the market to work its miracles. But the people are learning that the market will kill you.

Glen Ford is the executive editor of Black Agenda Report.

Odd, the truth hurts so bad they try to blot it out. Guess what? It won't go away so easily.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2018 01:27 pm
The Democrats should thank their lucky ******* stars for Bernie Sanders.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/amp/bernie-sanders-warns-democrats-about-meddling-primaries-he-would-know-n855246?__twitter_impression=true

Excerpt:
Ahead of a trip to Texas, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is warning the campaign arm of House Democrats to stay out of party primaries after they intervened in a high-profile congressional race in the state this week.

"That to me is simply unacceptable and I hope that does not happen again," Sanders, who dealt with similar allegations of party bigfooting during his 2016 presidential primary against Hillary Clinton, told NBC News in an interview.

Contention over whether the party played favorites in 2016 was reignited last November after former DNC interim chair Donna Brazile alleged in her book that the party, under her predecessor, essentially let itself be taken over by the Clinton campaign ahead of the 2016 presidential primaries — calling what happened a "cancer" on the party. (Brazile later backtracked.)

Prominent progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., agreed when asked at the time if the contest was "rigged" in favor of Clinton, while Sanders said that Brazile "showed enormous courage in describing the truth as she saw it when she came into the leadership of the DNC."

Democrats have a chance of flipping Texas’ 7th Congressional District, where primary voters on Tuesday advanced a candidate to a May runoff election even after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) publicly rebuked her.

"I am not a proponent of negative campaigning in general," Sanders said Thursday. "I am certainly strongly opposed to the idea that the DCCC would actually do opposition research and negative campaigning against a very strong and qualified Democratic candidate."

Sanders did not rule out getting involved in the race to support the candidate, Laura Moser, who already has the backing of Our Revolution, the political organization that spun out of Sanders' presidential campaign in 2016. "We’ll take a look at that race," he said.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2018 08:48 pm
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-administration-spent-36m-on-records-lawsuits-last-year/

Excerpt:
Obama administration in its final year in office spent a record $36.2 million on legal costs defending its refusal to turn over federal records under the Freedom of Information Act, according to an Associated Press analysis of new U.S. data that also showed poor performance in other categories measuring transparency in government.

For a second consecutive year, the Obama administration set a record for times federal employees told citizens, journalists and others that despite searching they couldn’t find a single page of files that were requested.

And it set records for outright denial of access to files, refusing to quickly consider requests described as especially newsworthy, and forcing people to pay for records who had asked the government to waive search and copy fees.

The government acknowledged when challenged that it had been wrong to initially refuse to turn over all or parts of records in more than one-third of such cases, the highest rate in at least six years.

In courtrooms, the number of lawsuits filed by news organizations under the Freedom of Information Act surged during the past four years, led by the New York Times, Center for Public Integrity and The Associated Press, according to a litigation study by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. The AP on Monday settled its 2015 lawsuit against the State Department for files about Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, at AP’s request, and received $150,546 from the department to cover part of its legal fees.

The AP has pending lawsuits against the FBI for records about its decision to impersonate an AP journalist during a criminal investigation and about who helped the FBI hack into a mass shooting suspect’s iPhone and how much the government paid to do it.

Of the $36.2 million in legal costs fighting such lawsuits last year, the Justice Department accounted for $12 million, the Homeland Security Department for $6.3 million and the Pentagon for $4.8 million. The three departments accounted for more than half the government’s total records requests last year.

The figures reflect the final struggles of the Obama administration during the 2016 election to meet President Barack Obama’s pledge that it was “the most transparent administration in history,” despite wide recognition of serious problems coping with requests under the information law. It received a record 788,769 requests for files last year and spent a record $478 million answering them and employed 4,263 full-time FOIA employees across more than 100 federal departments and agencies. That was higher by 142 such employees the previous year.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 11 Mar, 2018 12:11 am
@Lash,
Good for CBS

Any idea whether or not this story received TV airtime?

I suspect that at some during the day on FOX News, there were Democrat "strategists" insisting that the requests for information were an unprecedented deluge designed by right-wingers (like the NY Times and AP) to tie-up White House resources and demonstrated a blatant, partisan-driven disregard for national security.

The most transparent administration in history. What a joke! Almost as funny as Obama’s claim that his administration was scandal-free. The guy just spouted whatever bullshit he felt served him and the vast majority of his adorants believed it without question, and they’re still willing to do so. I guarantee that if there had been some way for him to pull off a third term, without resorting to violence, tens of millions of people would have signed on, and if he had any excuse to frame the situation as a national emergency a shitload of the Obama Cultists would have been OK with that too. Thank Goodness there were bounds to his ego..or that Michelle got homesick for Chicago.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/21/2018 at 02:33:06