Progressives (Liberals)

It’s unclear how any of this threatens Pelosi’s majority, except insofar as conservatives have sought to identify the entire Democratic Party with this one democratic socialist member’s views — which of course they are going to do in any event. Unless the entire House Democratic Caucus is expected to repeat the party line like cicadas, then there will always be members from districts where a more progressive viewpoint is viable than is politically sustainable everywhere. Their job is precisely to keep pressure on the leadership and the party to represent their constituents, too — not just the swing voters who have very nearly been hunted to extinction. And it doesn’t mean Democrats cannot accommodate candidates and members in more competitive districts with views more appropriate to local conditions. The big-tent principle should, however, work both ways.

If AOC begins threatening primary challenges to loyal Democrats from swing districts who happen to disagree with her ideology or policies, or suggesting Democrats take a dive in national elections if their candidates are too “centrist,” then that’s a clear violation of party discipline and Pelosi would be justified in rebuking her. That hasn’t happened, though. So long as gerrymandering and simple concentration of partisan voters produces safe House seats, however, their valuable function is to produce restless insurgents who stretch the imaginations of their elders rather than time-serving perpetual incumbents who go along to get along. In truth, both Pelosi, the precedent-shattering Speaker, and Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive comet, represent the silver lining of the generally rotten system of partisan gerrymandering: It gives leaders the opportunity to emerge from the crowd of election-fearing pols.

Michele Bachmann Exalts ‘Biblical’ Trump: We Will Never See A ‘More Godly’ POTUS

It makes no sense that students and their parents pay higher interest rates for college than they pay for car loans or housing mortgages.

Jay Rosen
‏Verified account
@jayrosen_nyu
A sentence about Facebook and news that I want you to read and ponder.

Quote:

"Supporting high-quality outlets would inevitably make it look like the platform was supporting liberals, which could lead to trouble in Washington, a town run mainly by conservatives."

Wired

Ryan Cooper skewers the dumb attacks on Bernie Sanders for being a millionaire.

I haven’t seen people attacking Bernie for being a millionaire; have you?

Twitter is RIFE with “1% Bernie” attacks. Plenty of MSM articles doing the same.

loopy stands with Ilhan Omar
@Pa1Lauren
So, first
@SpeakerPelosi goes on 60 Minutes & says AOC & her ‘group’ are like ‘5 people’. Then, privately meets w/ Mayor Pete & others on what to do about Bernie. Then she says a glass of water could win dem districts like AOC’s. And, people say Bernie’s the divisive one

Then she says a glass of water could win dem districts like AOC’s.

Pelosi appears to take new jab at Ocasio-Cortez, says ‘a glass of water’ with a ‘D’ could win their districts

Quote:

Twitter is RIFE with “1% Bernie” attacks. Plenty of MSM articles doing the same.

That is utter bullshit. God knows who you have on your twitter feed but there clearly are people who want to create division and a lot of those will be Russians and Republicans.

And, no, there aren't plenty of MSM articles doing the same.

As far as Donald Trump is concerned, Senate Republicans should take the lead on crafting the GOP's alternative to the Affordable Care Act. Evidently, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee isn't eager to help in the endeavor.

Quote:

Even Republicans who furiously fought the creation of the law and won elections with the mantra of repeal and replace speak favorably of President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement.

"Quite obviously, more people have health insurance than would otherwise have it, so you got to look at it as positive," Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a recent interview.

At a certain level, comments like these may seem so anodyne, they're hardly notable. Any responsible assessment of the Affordable Care Act and its effects would conclude that it obviously deserves to be seen in a positive light.

But in Republican politics over the last decade, rhetoric like Grassley's has been verboten. The only acceptable labels for "Obamacare" in GOP circles are words like "failure," "disaster," and attacks not suitable for publication on family websites like this one. To concede that the Affordable Care Act has helped millions, and has had a positive impact on the country, is to betray the Republican Party's goals and principles.

Indeed, Iowa’s senior senator is an observer of particular relevance. Those who followed the debate over health-care reform closely may recall that by the fall of 2009, “no Republican received more TLC from Barack Obama” than Chuck Grassley. The Democratic president and his team reached out to him constantly, hoping that he was the kind of senator who would work in good faith towards bipartisan solutions.

He was not. While Grassley claimed to be serious about bipartisan solutions on health care reform, he was also, at the same time, making fundraising appeals urging donors to send him cash to help him “defeat Obama-care.” Grassley proceeded to talk up “death panel” garbage and tout Glenn Beck’s book.

By August 2009, Grassley told MSNBC that he was negotiating with the White House on a health care compromise, which Grassley was prepared to vote against, even if it included everything he asked for.

In the years that followed, the conservative Iowan did what hundreds of other GOP lawmakers did: Grassley voted to repeal the reform law – in whole or in part – several times.

And yet, here we are.

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake recently added, “It is worth taking stock of this moment. What we are seeing here is the marking of a willful GOP capitulation to Obamacare. Republicans are essentially admitting it is here to stay, barring unforeseen changes. They are trying to dress it up and put a good face on it for Trump, given that he apparently is not willing to concede the point. But it appears their long-emphasized push to get rid of this allegedly destructive law is effectively over.”

Why would you so aggressively lie about it?