The problem of Corporate Democrats and how to kick them out

[SteveMDFP]

in this 2013 interview with author Chris Hedges, he would disagree with your assessment of the very rich.  He knows what he speaks having spent his entire youth in scholarship at the elite schools of the old money in New England.
 

Yeah, so did I.  Ivy Leaguer here.
I also lived in a homeless shelter.
I've had friends from both extremes of the socioeconomic ladder.
The poor and rich are not so different.  Mostly they differ by amount of education, and who their parents are.
They certainly are very alike in having a poor concept of what folks at the opposite end of the ladder are like.

[Neven]

Yeah, so did I.  Ivy Leaguer here.
I also lived in a homeless shelter.
I've had friends from both extremes of the socioeconomic ladder.
The poor and rich are not so different.  Mostly they differ by amount of education, and who their parents are.
They certainly are very alike in having a poor concept of what folks at the opposite end of the ladder are like.

That's a very good point you're making, like you're doing here as well:

In other words, it's a mistake to demonize the wealthy.  Mostly they got there by luck.  I don't think the wealthy are particularly different from the poor in character or morals or beliefs.  So there's no reason to welcome campaign contributions by the poor while eschewing contributions from the wealthy.  Mostly they all give because they like the message of the candidate.

Certainly *some* of the wealthy donors expect influence.  But I think most just want their candidate to win.  We should welcome those contributions.

I absolutely agree that it's a mistake to demonize the rich, which is why I've stopped referring to the 1%, but instead to the 'mountains of concentrated wealth'. The rich are just as much victims of the system as the poor. Of course, materially they can cope better, but on a psychological and spiritual level they're not that much better off. Maybe even worse, as it takes strong shoulders to carry the weight of wealth, and the richer you are, the more responsible you are in a way for the current global emergency.

But, of course, when I take about donors, I mostly refer to corporations representing Big Pharma, Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, Big Fossil Fuel and so on. And like wili said, there are private billionnaires who also expect something in return.

As for the rest of your recent comments, I understand what you mean, and I also agree with a lot of it, but at the same time I feel you are contradicting yourself. Money in politics is bad, but it's not all that bad if it's money for the Democratic Party. And so you have to assume that the recipients of that donor money are a) of truly good will and b) not compromised by the expectations that come with the donations. There is no way of knowing this. You point to a largely progressive legislative record (which is debatable). I point to the current situation, with a widening gap between rich and poor, the election of a narcissistic reality tv celebrity, and millions upon millions of Americans who feel betrayed and left behind.

And so it is better to be safe than sorry, and just not accept from politicians to accept large donations! It's the only assurance (however small, as loopholes will be found) that to be elected politicians mean business.

Not only this, it also takes the angle out of the massively successful propaganda tactics of the Republicans to portray the Democratic Party as the party of Wall Street and Hollywood (which wasn't that hard to do, because a lot of is simply true), the arrogant elites with their celebrity parties and smug righteousness.

Moreover, Obama and Sanders have shown it can be done, followed now by many others. By taking small donations you also motivate ordinary people to invest themselves as well, which means higher turnouts at the ballot box.

Something has to give, Steve. Even if what you say, is true, and the Democratic Party with its emphasis on Third Way, neoliberal policies that benefit the manager class with their good education and perfect politically correct manners, has largely done good and well-intentioned things, IT IS NOT WORKING. Business as usual is not an option. Not only is it morally wrong, but it's a strategic mistake.

It's time for a non-violent revolution. To save both the poor and the rich.

[Neven]

Re: Gillibrand and Booker

First they reject corporate money. Truly, crowdfunding is the new black.

Next they support decriminalizing weed.

http://thehill.com/regulation/373914-gillibrand-backs-bookers-bill-to-legalize-marijuana

Halleluia. Toke it up.

Well, that's a good start. Keep it up, and they might move the Democratic Party in the left direction.

sidd

This is indeed a good start, although I find it suspicious that they all come out at the same time with this. But you have to give them the benefit of the doubt, and we'll see if they really mean it.

[Neven]

Third comment in a row to get the thread back on track again:

Also, I'd like to really understand why (which evidence!) Neven believes that "Pelosi and her fellow corporate dinosaurs who eat their own young".

Rob, I hope you realize that this isn't something you can put in a spreadsheet, like snow cover and sea ice extent data, and then, out comes the objective truth. When you talk about non-scientific things like politics, economics and morals, you will inevitably also have things like anecdotes, logical deductions and various arguments presented in different ways. Another danger of continuously asking for facts or evidence and being the sole arbiter when presented with them, is that you are committing the fallacies of 'absence of evidence' and 'moving the goalposts'.

I know you have a very scientific mind, so I understand the confidence you have in facts/data. But you have to understand that we are not talking about science here and so you must allow some anecdotal evidence and logical deductions to understand where others are coming from.

For instance, every time I see Nancy Pelosi speak, or read some op-ed, I feel like she doesn't mean it, that it's all PR, scripted. Maybe it's the plastic surgery or the hairdo, but she feels fake to me. When she boasts that she's "the biggest fund-raiser in the country". Or when she says that there is "a home in the party for those who oppose abortion rights". Or when she says what a great president George Bush Jr. was in retrospect, or how great it would have been if Mitt Roney was president. Or that "people don't want a new direction, our values unify us". It absolutely makes me cringe.



Here's a YouTube video from a guy who absolutely hates Jimmy Dore (so maybe you can accept it) talking about how a tone-deaf Pelosi answered, or rather dodged, a question from a millennial student at a town hall:



Like pileus more or less says, even if Pelosi is fantastic and well-intentioned, she's a liability and it would be smart to replace her. Of course, she won't accept that, just like Clinton was adamant about becoming president no matter what, even though she was highly unpopular.

And now for something closer to facts, so that I don't piss you off completely.  Here's a list I found on the Internets called The Truth about Nancy Pelosi. Maybe it needs an update, as it seems most of it is old stuff:

The Truth About Nancy Pelosi

San Francisco's one current representative in Congress is Nancy Pelosi. Some view her positively, and she can talk the talk when in the right company. But she doesn't walk the walk on the biggest issues. In many ways, she's simply out of step with San Francisco.

Consider the Iraq War and the Patriot Act – issues on which the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and her constituents are on the record. On both issues, she's voted against the stated views of the people she represents. We live in a democracy, and she should expect to be held accountable for such votes.

1. WAR ON IRAQ
March 20, 2003 - The day after the war on Iraq was launched, as thousands upon thousands of her constituents were marching in the streets of San Francisco protesting the unilateral invasion, Pelosi was in Congress condemning the demonstrators. She voted that very day for a resolution declaring "unequivocal support and appreciation to the president...for his firm leadership and decisive action." And she used her leadership position in Congress to urge others to sign on to the resolution.
November 2, 2004 - In a referendum put to Pelosi's constituents, 63% voted in favor of the statement, "The federal government should take immediate steps to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq and bring our troops safely home now." This number, 63%, is surely low, as the entire city of San Francisco voted on it, while Pelosi only represents the city's more progressive eastern half.
January 12, 2005 - Two months after the November referendum, Bay Area Congressional Representatives Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, and Sam Farr joined Democratic colleagues from across the country in signing a letter to President Bush calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Pelosi conspicuously refused to sign on.
November 17, 2005 - Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) made a brave, groundbreaking call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Pelosi stood up and said, "Representative Murtha speaks for himself." And just one day later, on Nov. 18, 2006, she voted against immediate withdrawal from Iraq. She used her leadership position as House Democratic Leader to encourage others to oppose Murtha. Doing so helped to kill the momentum building at that time to force a timetable for troop withdrawals.
November 30, 2005 - Two weeks later (interestingly, just after local San Francisco Green Medea Benjamin spoke about possibly running against Pelosi), Pelosi reversed course and said she supported Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal. Still, she took no action and refused to use her leadership position to call for a 'party caucus position,' which would have put the majority of the Democratic Party on record against the war and shifted the national debate about the war. Indeed, at a point when two thirds of Americans had acknowledged that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and when a majority of Americans began saying that the time had come to start rectifying that mistake by bringing the troops home, Pelosi's actions stalled the national debate and weakened the Democratic Party's stance.
Pelosi has voted again and again to approve ever-increasing military spending. Year after year, she is a reliable ally of the military when they invariably request more. Of specific note, in 2002, she voted for a bill that allocated billions of new money for the development of new "low-yield," "usable" nuclear weapons. In 2003, she voted in favor of a bill that exempted the military from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
2. PATRIOT ACT
Despite the opposition of San Franciscans, Pelosi did not join – let alone lead – the 66 legislators who opposed this Orwellian legislation. No, she voted for the Patriot Act, which gives enormous, unwarranted power to the executive branch, unchecked by meaningful judicial review. This new authority has been used against American citizens in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism, against immigrants within our borders legally, and against those whose First Amendment activities are deemed by the Attorney General to be threats to national security. Again, she used her powerful leadership position in Congress to urge other representatives to vote with her.
See Pelosi's own words on her promise to "stand shoulder to shoulder with the President" on this and other erosions of civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.
3. NSA WIRETAPPING
Pelosi was one of very few legislators who learned about Bush's authorization of secret warrant-less wiretapping of U.S. citizens. She chose to go along with Bush's wishes and to say nothing for six months about this clear violation of the Constitution. "I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide [wiretapping] authority to the National Security Agency...and I have been provided with updates on several occasions," she acknowledged.
4. NAFTA
Pelosi voted for NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and supported it throughout its tortuous path into law. She has supported, and continues to support, other similar laws that entrench and exacerbate the most exploitative types of globalization, and generally refuses to insist on environmental or labor clauses in these bills to mitigate their worst effects. While she finally did vote against CAFTA (the Central American Free Trade Agreement) during the highly contentious vote last July, she chose not to use her leadership position to convince others to follow her lead, effectively assuring its passage. CAFTA passed 217-215, with 15 Democrats voting for it.
5. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Pelosi voted for this bill, another counter-intuitively named Bush law. In addition to, according to the latest Harvard study, accomplishing the opposite of its stated goal – bringing minority achievment up to national levels – this school 'reform' withholds federal money from any school which does not provide military recruiters not only with access to facilities, but also with contact information for every student. This bill also withholds federal money from any school district that prevents or denies students from participating in constitutionally protected prayer in public schools, and also withholds federal money to any school district that denies Boy Scouts the use of school facilities but allows other youth groups to use those same facilities.
6. TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY
Pelosi has voted to support Bush's call for raising the debt ceiling to finance further military expenditures and saddle future generations with even higher debt payments. She also opposed a call from progressives to examine the effect of the 1.35 trillion dollar 2001 tax cut on the budget before voting on this bill to go further into debt.
She opposed an effort by progressives to raise the issue of corporate corruption during 2002, as Republicans were making a concerted attempt to make permanent the various temporary provisions in the $1.35 trillion Bush tax cut of 2001.
7. PRESIDIO PRIVATIZATION
Not only has this been bad for San Francisco, but it's providing a precedent for efforts to privatize other national parks around the country. The SF Guardian reported:
It's been just over 10 years since Congress passed Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Presidio Trust legislation, effectively creating the first privatized national park in the United States. The results are pretty clear: Just cruise through the Presidio and check out the gigantic new office complex George Lucas has built. In fact, the private business interests that were given control of the park in 1995 now oversee more than 80 percent of the 1,408-acre parcel. The goal of the privatizers: raise enough money from development, leases, and other real estate deals to pay the entire cost of running the park by 2013. That's what Pelosi's legislation requires.

It's a terrible disaster for San Francisco. And at the time we warned it would set a terrible precedent for the nation: Once you turn the national parks over to private interests and require the parks to pay for themselves, you'll get the equivalent of Nike Corp. putting logos on the Grand Canyon and casinos demanding concessions at Yosemite.

Guess what? Just as we had feared and warned, the Republicans have discovered Pelosi's lovely precedent, and are looking at ways to privatize 350 million acres of public land. A rider by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Tracy) that would have allowed big corporations to take over public parcels for almost nothing nearly snuck into a 2005 budget bill. And earlier this year, Rep. Mark Souder, an Indiana Republican, introduced a bill that would in many ways mirror Pelosi's model for the entire national park system, by cutting back on park funding and requiring the parks to find corporate sponsors to make up the difference.

This is a gigantic leap from the philosophy behind the formation of the national park system a century ago. National parks aren't supposed to be revenue generators. They're supposed to be publicly supported and publicly controlled places where the public can enjoy the natural world.

For years, the right wing of the Republican party has been trying to undo that social contract: When Ronald Reagan was president, his interior secretary, James Watt, proposed letting Disney take over the Grand Canyon � but the idea was so roundly dismissed as lunacy that it never went very far.

In fact, nobody really took it seriously until a San Francisco Democrat, a woman who is now the highest-ranking Democratic politician in Washington, decided to give it liberal credibility
8. GAY MARRIAGE
Pelosi refused to support gay marriage and kept silent for over a month after gay marriages began in San Francisco. Then, when it was safe, once the California Supreme Court had halted the marriages, she emerged and said that she had in fact supported gay marriage all along.
9. GMO FOODS
She voted against progressives, and supported Bush in his challenge on rules for export/import of genetically-modified foods to Europe.
10. PUBLIC POWER
She has repeatedly taken no position on the huge grassroots efforts to bring public power to San Francisco. A 'no position' from San Francisco's primary representative in D.C. has effectively robbed San Francisco of leadership on implementation of the federal Raker Act's mandate on public power for San Francisco.
11. RENEWABLE ENERGY
Pelosi has a surprisingly poor record on this.
Voted against increasing funding for renewable energy on June 25, 2004
Voted against allocating $52 million from fossil fuel to renewables on June 21, 2001
12. SENTENCING GUIDELINES
Pelosi voted against progressives and supported an amendment that severely limits judges' discretion – specifically their ability to departure downward when sentencing offenders under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. This amendment forces judges to ignore extenuating circumstance and limits their flexibility when handing down sentences. It also requires the Department of Justice to develop a black list of judges who use downward departures in these types of cases.
13. 'RAVE' PARTIES
On April 10, 2003, Pelosi voted to effectively ban the popular dance parties called 'raves'. The RAVE Act (Reducing America's Vulnerability to Ecstacy Act) gives federal prosecutors new powers to shut down community events and punish business owners for hosting and promoting them, potentially subjecting innocent business-owners to enormous fines and imprisonment if customers sell or use drugs on premises or at their events – even if they were not involved in the offenses in any way. According to the Electronic Music Defense & Education Fund: "Punishing innocent businessmen and women for the crimes of their customers is unprecedented in U.S. history."
14. UNIONS
Despite receiving the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Union, Pelosi and her husband own a $25 million vineyard which is a non-union shop.
The Pelosis are also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti, which has 900 employees. The chain is also a non-union shop.
15. PERSONAL FINANCES
While the details of a candidate's personal life shouldn't generally be considered when analyzing that candidate's suitability for public office, Pelosi's status as a multi-millionaire property tycoon is germane in analyzing her above policy decisions. Under law, she has declared she owns with her husband two vineyards in St. Helena and Rutherford, Calif., worth from $6-26 million. The Pelosis also own six California properties worth from $3-11 million. There are many more millions of dollars worth of real estate and stock owned solely by her husband Paul, but she hasn't yet had to specify exactly how much and has only given ballpark figures. Of note, in their portfolio is part ownership of the luxurious CordeValle Golf Club in San Martin, CA, which they were granted a permit to build in 1996 only if they created natural habitats for several local endangered species. To date, these habitats still have not been built. The golf course has also been cited for polluting groundwater. They have hired lobbyists to fight the regulations.
Her status as fabulously wealthy may explain why she has voted at times with Bush on tax cuts and wars that benefit only this nation's extremely wealthy and powerful.
 

Nancy's Own Words
"Yes, I would support the President."
When asked, before Bush launched the war, whether she would support him if he were to decide to attack Iraq "unilaterally or with [just] the British and the Turks, and without UN approval."

"We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the President."
When asked about her personal position, and the position she takes as House Democratic Leader, on President Bush's various measures reducing civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

"We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the President in the fight against terrorism."
Later, in the same interview, when asked about the waning sense of threat from Al Qaeda.

Okay, off to bed now.

[sidd]

Re: HR5546, 110th congress, conyers

From the text:

"Authorizes providers of a single covered electronic payment system (e.g. Visa or Mastercharge credit cards) and merchants to jointly negotiate and agree upon rates and terms for access to such system.'

Thats what they were fighting. VISA/Mastercard/banks unilaterally decided rates. Cant have the bodega owner allowed to have a say in the skim rate on plastic money.

And they really didnt like this either:

Requires the rates and terms of a voluntarily negotiated access agreement to be the same for all merchants and participating providers, regardless of their respective category or volume of transactions.

or this:

"Requires agreements reached pursuant to the limited antitrust immunity under this Act to provide that: (1) when any fees that a merchant is charged for access to a covered electronic payment system are reduced, the merchant shall pass the benefits on to customers or employees; and (2) when any fees that a financial institution collects for access to a covered electronic payment system are increased, the institution shall pass those benefits on to its customers or employees."

For a blow by blow look at the may 15 2008 hearing at the task force on competiton and antitrust policy

(No I'm not going to find it for you. Do your own homework, i am tired of the "bring me another rock" discussion. I happen to have a copy since I followed these issues closely, since having had a merchant provider account for decades and was tired of the fees. )

HR5546 would have ended swipe fees for VISA. VISA didnt like that, bribed Pelosi to block it with cash and preIPO buyin. She did.

Legislators taking money form parties affected by current legislation is a bribe in my book. But clearly some people are cool with bribery. Like Pelosi ...

Actually I think refusal to even try to prosecute torturers and bankers is worse than taking bribes. But, as we see, there are people undisturbed by all of these.

sidd

[sidd]

I have posted my opinion earlier that candidates with anti-war messages might do well. I see that Sanders has a message along those lines:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/15/bernie-sanders-hits-on-winning-message-he-avoided-in-2016/

sidd

[SteveMDFP]

HR5546 would have ended swipe fees for VISA. VISA didnt like that, bribed Pelosi to block it with cash and preIPO buyin. She did.

Legislators taking money form parties affected by current legislation is a bribe in my book. But clearly some people are cool with bribery. Like Pelosi ...

Actually I think refusal to even try to prosecute torturers and bankers is worse than taking bribes. But, as we see, there are people undisturbed by all of these.

sidd

It seems there's another side to the Visa story:

‘60 Minutes’ Hit On Boehner, Pelosi Falls Short
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/14/60-minutes-pelosi-boehner_n_1091656.html

From this, it doesn't look like Pelosi was acting in the interest of Visa at all.

[Rob Dekker]

HR5546 would have ended swipe fees for VISA. VISA didnt like that, bribed Pelosi to block it with cash and preIPO buyin. She did.

Legislators taking money form parties affected by current legislation is a bribe in my book. But clearly some people are cool with bribery. Like Pelosi ...

Sidd, you are not reasonable.

For starters, HR5546 would never have made it past Bush's desk.

Secondly, HR5546 would NOT have ended swiping fees. Only 'negotiations' with merchants were mandated, but merchants had nothing to negotiate with. So it is unlikely that swiping fees would have decreased. They may actually have increased under HR5546.

Thirdly, regarding that "bribe" of pre-IPO VISA stock, you have got to be kidding.
We are talking March 2008, in the mids of the financial crisis, and just five days after JPMorgan offered to buy the remnants of the battered investment bank Bear Stearns for just $2 per share.
You would have to be crazy to invest in VISA at that time.
VISA has done very well since then, but at the time a $44 ($11 dollar for two stock splits) investment was extremely risky. They were lucky that it remained at that level a year later.
That's not a bribe. That's a very risky investment in very uncertain times, and anyone could have placed that bet right after the IPO any way.

And why don't you just show the legislation that DID pass in 2009 ? And how the Democrats voted on that ?

I'm getting a bit tired of this arguing. You keep on making unsubstantiated blatant statements (like "bribe" and "would have ended swipe fees") without ANY form of balanced rational reasoning.
So I give up. You can have the last word.

[Rob Dekker]

Thank you Neven for your elaborate response.
Yes, I understand that some people prefer "anecdotal evidence and logical deductions" to form their opinions. Personally I prefer facts.

And regarding that I see that in your multiple responses about Pelosi, there is only 40 sec of her own response (inside of the second video, which is 8.5 min long). The rest of the videos are opinions by other people.

The bigger question is why are you guys picking on a representative of the most liberal city in the most liberal state in the US ?

Couldn't you find some other politician to piss on ?

Like any of the Republicans or any of the Democrats that are clearly in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry ? Like the Democrats that voted to expedite the Keystone XL ?

Here are their names again :

Senators : Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

Members of Congress :

Terri Sewell (D, AL-07) PVI Index: D+20
Patrick Murphy (D, FL-18) PVI Index: R+3
Sanford Bishop (D, GA-02) PVI Index: D+6
John Barrow (D, GA-12) PVI Index: R+9
David Scott (D, GA-13) PVI Index: D+16
Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) PVI Index: D+4
Dan Lipinski (D, IL-03) PVI Index: D+5
Cedric Richmond (D, LA-02) PVI Index: D+23
Tim Walz (D, MN-01) PVI Index: R+1
Collin Peterson (D, MN-07) PVI Index: R+6
Rick Nolan (D, MN-08) PVI Index: D+1
Bennie Thompson (D, MS-02) PVI Index: D+13
Mike McIntyre (D, NC-07) PVI Index: R+12
Donald Norcross (D, NJ-01) PVI Index: D+13
Albio Sires (D, NJ-08) PVI Index: D+24
Carolyn McCarthy (D, NY-04) PVI Index: D+3
Sean Patrick Maloney (D, NY-18) PVI Index: R+0
Bill Owens (D, NY-21) PVI Index: R+0
Robert Brady (D, PA-01) PVI Index: D+28
Mike Doyle (D, PA-14) PVI Index: D+15
Jim Clyburn (D, SC-06) PVI Index: D+21
Jim Cooper (D, TN-05) PVI Index: D+5
Al Green (D, TX-09) PVI Index: D+25
Rubén Hinojosa (D, TX-15) PVI Index: D+5
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D, TX-18) PVI Index: D+24
Henry Cuellar (D, TX-28) PVI Index: D+7
Gene Green (D, TX-29) PVI Index: D+12
Marc Veasey (D, TX-33) PVI Index: D+18
Filemon Vela (D, TX-34) PVI Index: D+8
Jim Matheson (D, UT-04) PVI Index: R+16

Why not piss on these guys, rather than singling out Democrats from California who have a stellar environmental voting record ?

[Rob Dekker]

And Neven, second try :
You have strong opinions about Democrats here in the US, but meanwhile I don't hear a peep out of you regarding the Austrian elections, where you guys just voted an extreme right-wing party into government. A party with strong ties to Russia.

How did that come about ?
Or was that also Pelosi's and Feinstein's fault ?

[sidd]

Re: Austrian Elections

I'm sure someone can start a thread about Austrian Elections. Can we keep this to Corporate Democrats in the USA ? or should " the USA" be made explicit in the title of this thread ?

sidd

[sidd]

From a comment i made on another thread

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2143.msg142284.html#msg142284

Democratic Pary funders by income breakup: i attach a figure from that post:

We see that they get half their money from large donors and the top ten-thousandth income fraction of the populace.

sidd

[Rob Dekker]

Re: Austrian Elections
I'm sure someone can start a thread about Austrian Elections. Can we keep this to Corporate Democrats in the USA ? or should " the USA" be made explicit in the title of this thread ?

C'mon sidd. Cut me some slack.
Either way, you misunderstood my comment.

I merely want to understand how far this pissing-on-Democrats game goes, and specifically if you guys blame "corporate Democrats" also for the rise of Russia-sponsored far right wing parties internationally. I used Austria as an example, because that's where Neven lives.

And he started this thread, and owns this forum, so please let him speak for himself.

[Neven]

Rob's right, and sorry for not responding earlier. There's so much other stuff I wanted to respond to and Austrian politics is a bit off-topic, but not entirely, and so I'll briefly respond here.

I didn't get to vote here in Austria, as I've been living in Austria as a EU-resident for 8 years only so far. I believe that changes in 2 years or so, if I would take the Austrian nationality (haven't figured it out yet). I did get to vote for the municipal elections and voted greens, while my wife voted SPÖ, social democrats. The district where I live, is very FPÖ-minded, although the ÖVP is still dominant. ÖVP is what I would consider akin to the Democratic Party.

I know a bit more about Dutch politics, as that's where I'm from. Most of the time I voted 'Partij voor de Dieren' there, as parties like PvdA (social democrat), GroenLinks (greens) and SP (socialist) didn't really appeal all that much to me.

Why? For the same reasons I don't like what has happened to the Democratic Party in the US. The left in Europe, not everywhere and probably not as bad as in the US (because the influence of money in politics is smaller), has lost its way. And it's all because of neoliberalism, which is obviously a global phenomenon. And so in the Netherlands too, you see leftist politicians who can talk the talk, but as soon as they leave politics, get all kinds of very well-paid jobs on supervisory boards (Wim Kok, Wouter Bos, and so on). Even when talking the talk, it's mostly about economic growth and politically correct stuff like immigration. And so they themselves give massive amounts of ammo to assholes like Geert Wilders and now Thierry Baudet, who simply follow the Trump/GOP playbook, which is divide and destroy, not having the faintest idea how to build something positive and constructive.

As for Austria, quite frankly, it's not a coincidence that it has played a prominent role in the rise of national socialism. The same can probably be said about Bavaria (southern Germany), where I have lived for two years as well. The people are mostly friendly, but they are extremely conformist, go nuts if someone breaks one of the (invisible) rules, work is everything to them (everyone in my village gets up at 4.30 AM, I think), and though very traditional, consumer culture has completely usurped the traditions, catholic church plays a huge role. Still, most people I meet, are good on the whole and want good things. My 78-year old neighbour is quite the racist, but he's still a great guy who means well.

I haven't followed Austrian politics enough, as I'm not allowed to vote, but here too I think I see the signs of a smug, politically correct left which promotes neoliberal economic policies, with the extreme right FPÖ capitalizing on that, using the GOP/Trump playbook.

It's a global problem, which was born/created in the US of A. And so that's where the solution probably lies as well. In my view the biggest hurdle to a first step towards meaningful change is formed by Corporate Democrats (regardless of whether they mean well or not).

[Neven]

Thank you Neven for your elaborate response.
Yes, I understand that some people prefer "anecdotal evidence and logical deductions" to form their opinions. Personally I prefer facts.

Again, facts are great when talking about science. When talking about things like politics, morals and economics, things get more murky. What you may perceive as facts, may easily be your bias at work, without you being aware of it. For instance, and I'm speculating here, the reason why you can't find many faults with Corporate Democrats promoting neoliberal policies, might be that you're part of that professional, highly educated class to which they're trying to appeal. But because you like what's Bernie Sanders is saying, you have somehow convinced yourself that this is compatible with neoliberalist policies.

What facts can you present to show that this is indeed possible? It's not that easy to 'prove', and so I won't demand that. But maybe you can point me to anecdotal evidence or convincing analysis by someone who has a track record of cutting to the core, presenting his/her views from different angles, not just the one they subscribe to. There are quite a lot of thinkers who are reasonably independent. Someone like George Monbiot, for instance.

The bigger question is why are you guys picking on a representative of the most liberal city in the most liberal state in the US ?

Well, I posted a long list of what could be considered facts according to your definition, coming from people who live in San Francisco, I believe. I believe the list doesn't go any further than 2006, so I don't know how Pelosi voted after that. But there are already quite a lot of things there that make me raise my eyebrow and question Pelosi's progressiveness.

The reason I 'pick' on Pelosi, is that she is part of the Democratic Party leadership (who raises the most money, etc) and in my view is a representative of the neoliberal domination that has failed so many people in the US, pushed the GOP further right, and created the gap where Trump was able to squeeze in.

Remember, this thread is about discussing if Corporate Democrats pushing neoliberalism are a problem, and if so, who are these Corporate Democrats, and what should be done about them.

Like any of the Republicans or any of the Democrats that are clearly in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry ? Like the Democrats that voted to expedite the Keystone XL ?

Here are their names again :

Senators : Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

Yes, we've discussed these Republicans in Democrat's clothing, and it's really crazy how these people can even be tolerated, especially during these times. Which is why it's extremely important to support and invest in people who are primarying them, like Justice Democrats such as Paula Jean Swearengin in West-Virginia. Because the Democratic Party won't help them.

I also saw a YouTube video yesterday (from Jimmy Dore, sorry) showing an interview with a lady from Nevada who seems suitable for the job:

Why not piss on these guys, rather than singling out Democrats from California who have a stellar environmental voting record ?

Because they're not the leaders of the Democratic Party. Of course, we can investigate each and every single Congress member, but I think it's more important to agree first on whether neoliberalism is a problem, and how to make clear to politicians promoting it, that it has had its best time and it's time for a new direction (no matter what Pelosi says, people want a new direction).

Either you don't believe the Democratic Party has been pushing neoliberal policies, or you think that neoliberal policies are still the way to go, and that this will get you enough votes to beat Trump and the GOP. So, what is it, Rob?

As for stellar environmental voting record, according to that list I posted:

7. PRESIDIO PRIVATIZATION
Not only has this been bad for San Francisco, but it's providing a precedent for efforts to privatize other national parks around the country. The SF Guardian reported:
It's been just over 10 years since Congress passed Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Presidio Trust legislation, effectively creating the first privatized national park in the United States. The results are pretty clear: Just cruise through the Presidio and check out the gigantic new office complex George Lucas has built. In fact, the private business interests that were given control of the park in 1995 now oversee more than 80 percent of the 1,408-acre parcel. The goal of the privatizers: raise enough money from development, leases, and other real estate deals to pay the entire cost of running the park by 2013. That's what Pelosi's legislation requires.

It's a terrible disaster for San Francisco. And at the time we warned it would set a terrible precedent for the nation: Once you turn the national parks over to private interests and require the parks to pay for themselves, you'll get the equivalent of Nike Corp. putting logos on the Grand Canyon and casinos demanding concessions at Yosemite.

Guess what? Just as we had feared and warned, the Republicans have discovered Pelosi's lovely precedent, and are looking at ways to privatize 350 million acres of public land. A rider by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Tracy) that would have allowed big corporations to take over public parcels for almost nothing nearly snuck into a 2005 budget bill. And earlier this year, Rep. Mark Souder, an Indiana Republican, introduced a bill that would in many ways mirror Pelosi's model for the entire national park system, by cutting back on park funding and requiring the parks to find corporate sponsors to make up the difference.

This is a gigantic leap from the philosophy behind the formation of the national park system a century ago. National parks aren't supposed to be revenue generators. They're supposed to be publicly supported and publicly controlled places where the public can enjoy the natural world.

For years, the right wing of the Republican party has been trying to undo that social contract: When Ronald Reagan was president, his interior secretary, James Watt, proposed letting Disney take over the Grand Canyon, but the idea was so roundly dismissed as lunacy that it never went very far.

In fact, nobody really took it seriously until a San Francisco Democrat, a woman who is now the highest-ranking Democratic politician in Washington, decided to give it liberal credibility.

And this:

While the details of a candidate's personal life shouldn't generally be considered when analyzing that candidate's suitability for public office, Pelosi's status as a multi-millionaire property tycoon is germane in analyzing her above policy decisions. Under law, she has declared she owns with her husband two vineyards in St. Helena and Rutherford, Calif., worth from $6-26 million. The Pelosis also own six California properties worth from $3-11 million. There are many more millions of dollars worth of real estate and stock owned solely by her husband Paul, but she hasn't yet had to specify exactly how much and has only given ballpark figures.

Of note, in their portfolio is part ownership of the luxurious CordeValle Golf Club in San Martin, CA, which they were granted a permit to build in 1996 only if they created natural habitats for several local endangered species. To date, these habitats still have not been built. The golf course has also been cited for polluting groundwater. They have hired lobbyists to fight the regulations.

I don't know if this is true, even though it's coming from San Francisco citizens. If you want, we can look into it together.

And again, this list was probably compiled in 2006. I don't know how she voted after that, or what her role was in bailing out the banks and making sure no one from the professional banker class got fined or sentenced, or how she voted on anything related to the endless wars. We know she recently refused to endorse Medicare for All legislation backed by Bernie Sanders (I wonder why). Maybe there's a more recent list somewhere else?

[Neven]

Some more good news:

[prairiebotanist]

Like any of the Republicans or any of the Democrats that are clearly in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry ? Like the Democrats that voted to expedite the Keystone XL ?

Here are their names again :

Senators : Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

Yes, we've discussed these Republicans in Democrat's clothing, and it's really crazy how these people can even be tolerated, especially during these times. Which is why it's extremely important to support and invest in people who are primarying them, like Justice Democrats such as Paula Jean Swearengin in West-Virginia. Because the Democratic Party won't help them.

It is not at all crazy that they are tolerated. It is of great benefit to have people like that elected in places that would otherwise elect Republicans, because even if they vote with Republicans some of the time, if they caucus with Democrats, it puts Democrats closer to being the majority Caucus and controlling all of the chairmanships and what legislation comes to the floor, and that would make a huge difference. If, say, there were 51 caucusing with Democrats in the Senate, and it was only because there were some conservatives like Manchin, it would be a game-changer, and that could be the case, if those conservative "Democrats" are able to hold off republican challengers this coming November.

[Neven]

Maybe you're right (and it's definitely what we've been told over and over again), but maybe this thinking no longer applies. I agree that mainstream Democratic politicians probably won't go far in those fossil fuel states, but maybe truly progressive Bernie Sanders-style candidates can (like Swearengin, for instance). If they get enough support, that is, which the DCCC seems unwilling to give, or so I've understood.

Here's something else wrt the comment I wrote concerning leftist (in name) parties in Europe, from a comment by sidd elsewhere on the Forum:

2) Presentation by Piketty in January this year which is a closer look at voter breakup in France and USA. He observes that the leftist parties in France and the Democrats in the USA have been taken over by well educated, highly paid globalists and proposes a model to guide future analysis.

piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018PoliticalConflict.pdf

many nice graphs

[Susan Anderson]

@Neven et al.

Senators : Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

This is just wrong. Please check their voting record. The worst Democrat is way better than any Republican and all of these but perhaps Joe Manchin (addressed elsewhere; and Donnelly could be a lot better) are not "Republicans in sheep's clothing". Evidence please!!

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/michael-bennet (lifetime 89%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/tom-carper (lifetime 82%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/bob-casey (lifetime 91%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-donnelly (lifetime 58%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/claire-mccaskill (lifetime 74%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/jon-tester (lifetime 86%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/mark-r-warner (lifetime 88%)

Try tab "recent votes" and look at specifics, and please stop encouraging each other to spread false information. I included "lifetime" as a benchmark for those who won't look at or can't open any of the links. It's a very specific site that provides actual voting records. For comparison, Bernie Sanders earned 91%, Elizabeth Warren 98%, Ed Markey 94%, and Manchin 47%.

The League of Conservation Voters is one of the best references on what is actually happening.

[Martin Gisser]

maybe truly progressive Bernie Sanders-style candidates can.

Maybe postpone that experiment until after America is saved from fascism?

There are states where Trump has ridiculously high approval rates. And this rate is essentially stable - despite one long year of madness. You seriously hope that a Bernie would have any chance there?

------------
I have now heard ad nauseam that Democrat coastal elitists should listen more to the flyover Americans. -- It looks more like those folks can not be reached and prefer to vote against their interests over voting for a librol "libtard". They clutch their bibles and only watch Fox "News" and have neither interest nor mental capacity to engage with the real world outside their bubble - even engage with their own problems.  They prefer suffering over reason. (That lesson could have been learned already from healthcare and gun control debate...) Those folks are essentially unreachable - and that is their fault, not the librols'.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/insider-explains-rural-christian-white-america-dark-terrifying-underbelly/
https://thedailybanter.com/2018/02/study-shows-trump-supporters-now-basically-unreachable/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford

[TerryM]

Martin


The flyovers also out-breed the elite.
Unless you want to split up the country, or do away with voting entirely, you are going to need to discover how to reach these people.
You could try labeling them "deplorables", but that didn't work so well last time.


Terry

[Neven]

Have you ever been there and interacted with the people, Martin? Or do you just look at their education/IQ scores as the determinant of good/evil?

And please, also explain how more neoliberalism saves America from fascism. How does that strategy work and how has it worked so far?

[Neven]

@Neven et al.

Senators : Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

This is just wrong. Please check their voting record. The worst Democrat is way better than any Republican and all of these but perhaps Joe Manchin (addressed elsewhere; and Donnelly could be a lot better) are not "Republicans in sheep's clothing". Evidence please!!

You'll have to take this up with Rob Dekker, Susan. He said that these are the "Democrats that voted to expedite the Keystone XL".

[TerryM]

A meritocracy would be wonderful - for those deemed meritorious.
My father was basically a-political, but had one dream.


He thought every voter should take an IQ test before hitting the polls.


Each vote would be weighted by the IQ of the voter, with those below 100 scored as negative votes. The voter himself would never be advised of his score.


Damn good thing he never involved himself with politics.
Terry

[Martin Gisser]

Have you ever been there and interacted with the people, Martin?

Been there last century. Met both sides, coastal elite (Boston) and rural white christian folks. Crossed West to East by bus, not airplane. That was a while ago, but things have gotten worse since then. I have an elderly white ex Black Panther hippie friend (Minnesota/California) who comes to Europe every year - that's why I've been closely watching the Trump debacle since summer 2016 (heck I regret that ). Almost every year I meet other American activist folks around fireplaces where global travellers gather, e.g. one of the "turtle traders" (forgot name). And then there's the virtual world...

-----------------
P.S.: IQ has nothing to do with good/evil or with intelligent voting. And beside, the higher the IQ the more stupid one can figure. Seen that often enough.

[Susan Anderson]

@Neven et al.

Senators : Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

You'll have to take this up with Rob Dekker, Susan. He said that these are the "Democrats that voted to expedite the Keystone XL".

Sorry I didnt go back far enough. The list was on your message, and since I abandoned this discussion a while ago, it was only seeing that list that made me look them up.

I had hoped that people would notice the substantive backup I provided about these individuals' records voting on environmental legislation, but I should have looked up the source rather than quoting your quote. here it is again:

Please check their voting record. The worst Democrat is way better than any Republican and all of these but perhaps Joe Manchin (addressed elsewhere; and Donnelly could be a lot better) are not "Republicans in sheep's clothing". Evidence please!!

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/michael-bennet (lifetime 89%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/tom-carper (lifetime 82%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/bob-casey (lifetime 91%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-donnelly (lifetime 58%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/claire-mccaskill (lifetime 74%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/jon-tester (lifetime 86%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/mark-r-warner (lifetime 88%)

Try tab "recent votes" and look at specifics. I included "lifetime" as a benchmark for those who won't look at or can't open any of the links. It's a very specific site that provides actual voting records. For comparison, Bernie Sanders earned 91%, Elizabeth Warren 98%, Ed Markey 94%, and Manchin 47%.

The League of Conservation Voters is one of the best references on what is actually happening.

[TerryM]

Susan
The choice doesn't have to be between a bad Democrat and a worse Republican. Nancy Pelosi's seat will be Democrat no matter who runs, so why not run a good progressive democrat.
Same with Feinstein and so many more. We don't want to allow Republicans to the table, just to improve the quality of the Democrats.


Terry
FWIW
I believe that progressive candidates, not beholden to big money donors would win many of the "tight" races. After all they can promise single payer healthcare.

[Neven]

Almost every year I meet other American activist folks around fireplaces where global travellers gather, e.g. one of the "turtle traders" (forgot name). And then there's the virtual world...

I would think that American activists, especially the hippie type, aren't the greatest fans of neoliberalism, and hence see what the problem of the Democratic Party is. You must have very heated debates during those camp fires. 

edit: Martin, those people you met in the US, the ones who probably have voted for Trump, were they all evil?

----

Maybe we should talk some more about neoliberalism. Like I alluded in my comment to Rob, it's possible that people who object to this discussion of Corporate Democrats so vehemently, actually don't see much of a problem with neoliberalism. Or they don't think that the Democratic Party has largely supported neoliberal economic policies in the last 30 odd years.

And to be clear, as the term 'neoliberal' is less clearly defined in the US as it is in the rest of the world, I refer to the definition as presented by Wikipedia:

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Such ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.

English-speakers have used the term "neoliberalism" since the start of the 20th century with different meanings, but it became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 1980s, used by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences, as well as by critics. Modern advocates of free-market policies avoid the term "neoliberal" and some scholars have described the term as meaning different things to different people, as neoliberalism "mutated" into geopolitically distinct hybrids as it travelled around the world. As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other concepts that have contested meanings, including democracy.

The definition and usage of the term have changed over time. As an economic philosophy, neoliberalism emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s as they attempted to trace a so-called "third" or "middle" way between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning. The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which neoliberals mostly blamed on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term "neoliberal" tended to refer to theories which diverged from the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism, and which promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.

In the 1960s usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term re-appeared in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet's economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan.

Once the new meaning of neoliberalism became established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy. By 1994, with the passage of NAFTA and with the Zapatistas' reaction to this development in Chiapas, the term entered global circulation. Scholarship on the phenomenon of neoliberalism has been growing over the last couple of decades. The impact of the global 2008–2009 crisis has also given rise to new scholarship that criticises neoliberalism and seeks developmental alternatives.

Is this something we can discuss?

Like Martin Gisser says, fascism is on the rise in the US, and there are some clear parallels with the rise of fascism in Germany of the 1930s. What caused the rise of fascism back then, and what is causing it now?

[sidd]

That Piketty paper is good, as is all his work. I attach some figures:

sidd

[Martin Gisser]

I would think that American activists, especially the hippie type, aren't the greatest fans of neoliberalism, and hence see what the problem of the Democratic Party is. You must have very heated debates during those camp fires. 

Only with my Black Panther friend, who voted Stein, but in a non-swing state.

edit: Martin, those people you met in the US, the ones who probably have voted for Trump, were they all evil?

Except for a crazy racist uncle they were disarmingly sweet and charming -- but insanely naive. (But that was last century - a Trump was unthinkable back then, and there wasn't that much middle class meltdown.)

While stupid is an evil, not every stupid is evil

[Rob Dekker]

@Neven et al.

Senators : Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

You'll have to take this up with Rob Dekker, Susan. He said that these are the "Democrats that voted to expedite the Keystone XL".

Sorry I didnt go back far enough. The list was on your message, and since I abandoned this discussion a while ago, it was only seeing that list that made me look them up.

I had hoped that people would notice the substantive backup I provided about these individuals' records voting on environmental legislation, but I should have looked up the source rather than quoting your quote. here it is again:

Please check their voting record. The worst Democrat is way better than any Republican and all of these but perhaps Joe Manchin (addressed elsewhere; and Donnelly could be a lot better) are not "Republicans in sheep's clothing". Evidence please!!

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/michael-bennet (lifetime 89%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/tom-carper (lifetime 82%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/bob-casey (lifetime 91%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-donnelly (lifetime 58%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/claire-mccaskill (lifetime 74%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/jon-tester (lifetime 86%)
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/mark-r-warner (lifetime 88%)

Try tab "recent votes" and look at specifics. I included "lifetime" as a benchmark for those who won't look at or can't open any of the links. It's a very specific site that provides actual voting records. For comparison, Bernie Sanders earned 91%, Elizabeth Warren 98%, Ed Markey 94%, and Manchin 47%.

The League of Conservation Voters is one of the best references on what is actually happening.

Susan, I fully agree with your statement that "The worst Democrat is way better than any Republican".

But I fought long and hard (on-line and in person) against the Keystone XL, and I felt betrayed by Democrats voting in favor of it. And it is not that they had to. Most of the Democrats that voted to expedite the Keystone XL were from states where the Keystone XL did not even pass through.

Knowing that the Keystone XL is not only quite literally a danger to global warming, but even more so as a symbol, and against a movement that got thousands of people to protest in the streets, why on Earth would they vote in favor of it ?

For example, why did Bob Casey of Pennsylvania vote to expedite the Keystone XL ?

I respect the League of Conservation Voters, but these Democrats made a huge mistake.

[Rob Dekker]

Regarding Casey, and his Keystone XL vote, here is what he said :

Casey “believes that the project could create jobs and bolster energy security,” said a spokesman for the senator, John Rizzo. “He believes we must continue to grow the domestic energy supply to fuel the economy and increase our energy independence.”

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/capitolinq/Casey-splits-with-Dems-supports-Keystone-XL.html

Which is utter and total Republican BS.

The Keystone XL IMPORTS bitumen from Canada, so there is no "grow the domestic energy supply" at all, and no "energy independence" either. We will just be more DEPENDENT on imported oil.
And neither does it "fuel the economy" since the Keystone XL simply routes bitumen THROUGH the US for export of refined products.

And regarding the argument that it would "create jobs", yeah, it will create about 20 permanent jobs.

Casey has an otherwise stellar record on environmental voting, but in this case he totally went Republican. Against all other Democrats.

Why ?

[sidd]

Re: Casey pipeline vote

Follow the money:

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00027503

top contributor: Exelon

Exelon has:

--
Exelon owns and operates a fossil generation portfolio of nearly 10,000 megawatts (MW).

    Chester Generating Station - Oil (Pennsylvania)
    Colorado Bend Energy Center - Natural Gas (Texas)
    Croydon Generating Station - Oil (Pennsylvania)
    Delaware Generating Station - Oil (Pennsylvania)
    Eddystone Generating Station - Natural Gas and Oil (Pennsylvania)
    ExTex LaPorte Generating Station - Natural Gas (Texas)
    Falls Generating Station - Oil (Pennsylvania)
    Framingham Generating Station - Natural Gas (Massachusetts)
    Gould Street Generating Station - Natural Gas (Maryland)
    Grande Prairie Generating Station - Natural Gas (Alberta, Canada)
    Handley Generating Station - Natural Gas (Texas)
    Handsome Lake Generating Station - Natural Gas (Pennsylvania)
    Hillabee Generating Station - Natural Gas (Alabama)
    Moser Generating Station - Oil (Pennsylvania)
    Mountain Creek Generating Station - Natural Gas (Texas)
    Mystic Generating Station - Oil and Natural Gas (Massachusetts)
    Notch Cliff Generating Station - Natural Gas (Maryland)
    Perryman Generating Station - Oil and Natural Gas (Maryland)
    Philadelphia Road Generating Station - Oil (Pennsylvania)
    Richmond Generating Station - Oil (Pennsylvania)
    Riverside Generating Station - Oil and Natural Gas (Maryland)
    Schuylkill Generating Station - Oil (Pennsylvania)
    Southeast Chicago Energy Project - Natural Gas (Illinois)
    Southwark Generating Station - Oil (Pennsylvania)
    West Medway Generating Station - Oil (Massachusetts)
    Westport Generating Station - Natural Gas (Maryland)
    Wolf Hollow Generating Station - Natural Gas (Texas)
    Wyman Generating Station - Oil (Maine) (Minority Owner)
--

I drive past some of them a lot.

sidd

[sidd]

Mr. Gisser wrote:

"I have now heard ad nauseam that Democrat coastal elitists should listen more to the flyover Americans. -- It looks more like those folks can not be reached and prefer to vote against their interests over voting for a librol "libtard". They clutch their bibles and only watch Fox "News" and have neither interest nor mental capacity to engage with the real world outside their bubble - even engage with their own problems.  They prefer suffering over reason. (That lesson could have been learned already from healthcare and gun control debate...) Those folks are essentially unreachable - and that is their fault, not the librols'."

That's a pretty broad brush you're swinging there.

[This comment turned out to be much longer than i expected. Please skip if it turns boring.]

I have remarked before that very few on this forum know any Trump voters, and fewer yet know any well. Coincidentally, as I was reading Mr Gisser's comment, two of them walked through my door. For convenience, I shall call them Pat and Mike. My computer was using a TV as a screen so they happened to see it.

I know both of them for a long time, and by their expressions I could tell that they had Opinions Which Would Shortly be Expressed. But being practical men with a keen sense of priorities, they held their peace, found the beer, then rolled a huge spliff, and gurgled and smoked for a while.

Both are melanin challenged. Both work with their hands. Pat is a high grade carpenter, all the way to cabinetry, the kind of guy who would rip out a whole staircase if it were a thirty-second off. Learnt his trade from his father, who recently passed away, up and down the byways of tiny places in PA. Mike is at his level in tile, stone and concrete work, started off a city boy, but for two decades now prefers the solitude of rurality. Both would give you the shirt off their back if you are a friend, but they are quick to anger, slow to friendship, slow to forgive wrongs, and never forget them.  Neither is naive, rather they are very,very sceptical.  Are they smart ? In their profession they are the cream. Outside those confines, less so, just like the rest of us. Neither of them watch anything except NASCAR, football and basketball on whatever channel happens to be carrying it. No right wing radio, they like their classic rock all the time on jobsites.  No news, no PBS, no sitcoms, no nuttn. They get their news in small pieces interspersed between sports shows or rock songs, and the local newspapers (yes, there still are some.)

They use their phones for voice and text, any websurfing is done on desktops with large keyboards. This is because they have brutalized their hands and fingers over the long years and cannot handle touchscreens efficiently. When you shake hands with people in the construction trade, you learn to expect fingers sticking out at odd angles. These guys smash their fingers, use duct tape and wood shims as splints and it never gets set or heals right. Pat has no insurance. Mike was on the Obamacare thing, right before the elections rates went up, he dropped out, and now is happy that Trump eliminated the mandate so he doesnt have the tax penalty. They have paid a harsh price for the little they have.  Mike's knees and back are long destroyed, Pat has bad back, shoulders, elbows, and just impacted his neck the other day when a load slipped. Not that they do much websurfing other than work related. Wake a couple hours before daybreak, set up for the day, hit the road, come home after dark, clean up, get the paperwork, turn on the tube and pass out.

Both of them were "run long, whipped hard and put away wet" in the last recession. Pat lost job, house, wife and kids, and Mike lost job and wife, and had to take a mortgage on a paid off house to settle the divorce. Fortunately his kids were grown and gone before the divorce.

"Who wrote that ?" came the question I had been expecting. I confessed that Neven's forum is anonymous to a large degree; all I knew was the name used to post the comment. They considered this for a while, then Pat hitched up his jeans, cocked his head, and delivered his judgement in a perfectly inflected Pennsyltucky drawl "I cain tayl he aihn't frum 'raound heah, nohow" and the three of us exploded in laughter, not the least because Mike is from the watersides of the city of brotherly love and has that staccato delivery in natural speech.

We then began counting up all the Trump voters that we knew well enough to tell whether they had bibles or went to church. That turned out to be a surprisingly small fraction. Mike swore up and down that he knew no Trump voters who would appear in church uness lured by promises of strong drink at weddings or funerals. Pat admitted he had a bible, but in his defense he explained that it was holding up a corner of his coffee table, it was structural, as it were.

In the end we came up with a grand total of three out of several dozen. One is a very nice man who goes to church every Sunday, teetotaller, and drives for me on and off. He once drove four hundred miles on iced back roads to bring me a driveshaft and he wasn't even on the payroll then. It was the vilest of weather, I-80 down, but he is a good friend. The other two are mean as snakes, we all agreed, with apologies to snakes. (There's a bunch of blacksnakes under one of the barns who eat those rodents fortunate or unfortunate enough to elude the cats.)

Both of them had comments, which I reproduce with their permission:

PAT: "I'm a union guy, voted for Kerry, then Obama twice. Then Trump because I lost my house, got no help suing the banks, lived on the street, Obama didnt help. I voted Trump to make a change, and hoo boy, he is making lots. There's not hope for me unless things change. I'll take my chances with him. I got nuttn 'gainst voting democrat. But they didn't help me for eight years. If Trump dont deliver, next election I'll vote again for anybody who seems like he can change things."

MIKE: "What Pat says. Trump won the country and Clinton won the cities round here. Lot of people out in the hollers [hollows;valleys] don't usually vote. Now you got 'em so desperate they actually went out and voted for Trump.  They voted for Trump because they're at the end of their rope. I hadn't voted in a long time, i went out and voted for Trump. There's a lot of folk in the hollers, if they come out to vote every time you gonna have'ta talk to them. Both parties are scum, they do what the rich people want.  I went for Trump because both parties hated him."

You may argue that Pat is taking very dangerous chances and Mike overestimates the strength and turnout of the rural white vote. And if you meet them, they are polite to strangers, and will hear you out. Who knows, you may even convince them. But be aware they will weigh your words aginst their actual lived experience.

Make of all this what you will. I can report these sentiments are shared in many little lost places of flyover country. Perhaps their time is gone, their fate is to be subsumed and forgotten in out New! Globalist! Connected! utopia. But they have survived a great deal and might surprise yet. Something tells me that rural USA yet will decide more than is thought possible on the coasts and the cities.

sidd

[SteveMDFP]

I have remarked before that very few on this forum know any Trump voters, and fewer yet know any well. Coincidentally, as I was reading Mr Gisser's comment, two of them walked through my door. For convenience, I shall call them Pat and Mike. My computer was using a TV as a screen so they happened to see it.

I know both of them for a long time, and by their expressions I could tell that they had Opinions Which Would Shortly be Expressed. But being practical men with a keen sense of priorities, they held their peace, found the beer, then rolled a huge spliff, and gurgled and smoked for a while.

Both are melanin challenged. Both work with their hands. Pat is a high grade carpenter, all the way to cabinetry, the kind of guy who would rip out a whole staircase if it were a thirty-second off. Learnt his trade from his father, who recently passed away, up and down the byways of tiny places in PA. Mike is at his level in tile, stone and concrete work, started off a city boy, but for two decades now prefers the solitude of rurality. Both would give you the shirt off their back if you are a friend, but they are quick to anger, slow to friendship, slow to forgive wrongs, and
. . .

Make of all this what you will. I can report these sentiments are shared in many little lost places of flyover country. Perhaps their time is gone, their fate is to be subsumed and forgotten in out New! Globalist! Connected! utopia. But they have survived a great deal and might surprise yet. Something tells me that rural USA yet will decide more than is thought possible on the coasts and the cities.

sidd

Plenty of similar such folks in urban areas, too.  They might be day laborers, landscape and construction workers, tradesmen.

For all these folks for whom the economic recovery was even slower than for better-off folks, there were some rational reasons to support Trump.  He promised health care that would cover everyone, and inexpensively.  He promised plenty of jobs--by killing free trade deals and stemming the flow of immigrants who many of these folks felt were taking away jobs from "real Americans."

Unless you have the leisure time and inclination to study Trumps history of lies, and to understand that the relationships among employment, trade, and immigration are far more complicated than this--it all sounds perfectly appropriate.  Exactly what America needs.

You have to be something of a policy and politics geek to appreciate just how toxic Trump is to the US and all of humanity.  Not everyone is going to be a policy and politics geek.

[pileus]

Of course the rural and flyover folk will continue to have an outsize influence on US presidential elections, as the Electoral College system is skewed towards over representing those area.  Democrats won the will of the American people in 2000 and 2016, but were denied the White House thanks to this system.

I was born to a rural blue collar family in Pennsylvania Dutch Country, have lived in the PA mountains and on both sides of Philadelphia.  When I was young I worked in factories and production lines of different parts of PA.  Most of my family remain conservative, and I know plenty of other Trump voters.  I interact with them even though I’ve moved on to become a Coastal Elite and Neoliberal Schill.

sidd, you may want to gently tell your buds they’ve been had and duped by a con man and carnival barker.  He isn’t going to help them, but he sure will make them feel good about validating their sense of indignity, and directing their outrage at various targets.  That’s what Trump has always been about.  He’s a product of the gilded elite and he cares not a bit for your friends, he just uses them as props and tools.

[SteveMDFP]

As for the rest of your recent comments, I understand what you mean, and I also agree with a lot of it, but at the same time I feel you are contradicting yourself. Money in politics is bad, but it's not all that bad if it's money for the Democratic Party. And so you have to assume that the recipients of that donor money are a) of truly good will and b) not compromised by the expectations that come with the donations. There is no way of knowing this. You point to a largely progressive legislative record (which is debatable). I point to the current situation, with a widening gap between rich and poor, the election of a narcissistic reality tv celebrity, and millions upon millions of Americans who feel betrayed and left behind.
. . .

No, no contradiction in my words, and no such assumptions. I'm an empiricist.  There's real data to back up my assertions.  As a whole, Democrats in Congress do not vote for corporate interests over the interests of the people, with some notable exceptions.  We could talk about the exceptions, if you want.

After the GFC, neither party went out to punish the array of high-class fraudsters with criminal prosecutions.  That's a scandal.  But the Dems at least passed legislation (esp Dodd-Frank) to prevent a re-play.  That was more important.  Republicans opposed this. And prosecutions are for the Justice Dept anyway, not Congress.

Individual Dems are whores for specific corporate sectors.  Elizabeth Warren for medical device manufacturers.  Manchin for the coal industry.  Booker for Pharma.  Others for other industries.  That's not good, but collectively they tend to vote against such corporate interests.  You want medical device manufacturers to pay their fair share?  Manchin alone cancels out Warren.  And for coal, Warren alone cancels out Manchin.  So let them both stay put.  They're whores to specific interests, but Republicans seem to be whores to anybody who will pay.

It's all an intrinsically corrupt system.  We have to tolerate some venal sins to avoid mortal sins.  There's no room at all for being lily-white if you want to have progress.  That's politics in America.  That's what the real evidence shows.

And so it is better to be safe than sorry, and just not accept from politicians to accept large donations! It's the only assurance (however small, as loopholes will be found) that to be elected politicians mean business.

The pure will reign over the sinners?  See above.  I'm not the one making assumptions on this.  Fact:  money sways opinions and wins elections.  If you're a badly under-funded candidate, you'll very likely lose.  Only a rare candidate makes it work.  We can't afford to risk eco-socio-economic collapse by betting on rare candidates being in the ring.

Not only this, it also takes the angle out of the massively successful propaganda tactics of the Republicans to portray the Democratic Party as the party of Wall Street and Hollywood (which wasn't that hard to do, because a lot of is simply true), the arrogant elites with their celebrity parties and smug righteousness.

Moreover, Obama and Sanders have shown it can be done, followed now by many others. By taking small donations you also motivate ordinary people to invest themselves as well, which means higher turnouts at the ballot box.

Both parties are whores to Wall Street.  The Rs more than the Ds.  Wall Street comprises the donors with deepest pockets.  And they give to both parties because they want influence regardless of which party wins.  Every side here has compelling reasons for what they do.  Nobody can afford to do anything different.  If Elizabeth Warren runs for the White House and loses to a Republican, it will be because of Wall Street influence against her.  We can't afford such a loss.

Obama and Sanders were both exceptionally rare candidates.  And Obama started out planning on taking only public financing, but he soon gave in.  I think he only won on the first round because the economy had started into free-fall before election day.  And on the second round, only because he held the advantage of incumbency.

Something has to give, Steve. Even if what you say, is true, and the Democratic Party with its emphasis on Third Way, neoliberal policies that benefit the manager class with their good education and perfect politically correct manners, has largely done good and well-intentioned things, IT IS NOT WORKING. Business as usual is not an option. Not only is it morally wrong, but it's a strategic mistake.

It's time for a non-violent revolution. To save both the poor and the rich.

The Third Way and neoliberalism by Dems went away when Bill Clinton left office.  The only Dem-supported such effort since, that I can think of, was Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership plan.  Killing it was the only good thing Trump has done in his life, as far as I can tell.

Obama promoted it for the wrong reason (hemming in China's global influence) and he gave away the farm to advance it (extending a system of excessive corporate power over much of the globe).

Trump killed it for for the wrong reason (saving jobs--jobs in America weren't what was at stake).  But it's good that it's dead, regardless of who was wrong about what.

Now, really, if you think neoliberalism is part of the Democratic agenda in Congress, be specific with evidence.  What specific legislation, which specific votes support that assertion?  I see the opposite when I look at legislation and votes.  These things are what's called "evidence."

[Neven]

"Who wrote that ?" came the question I had been expecting.

Now you're in trouble, Martin! 

You have to be something of a policy and politics geek to appreciate just how toxic Trump neoliberalism is to the US and all of humanity.  Not everyone is going to be a policy and politics geek.

I repeat:

Maybe we should talk some more about neoliberalism. Like I alluded in my comment to Rob, it's possible that people who object to this discussion of Corporate Democrats so vehemently, actually don't see much of a problem with neoliberalism. Or they don't think that the Democratic Party has largely supported neoliberal economic policies in the last 30 odd years.

And to be clear, as the term 'neoliberal' is less clearly defined in the US as it is in the rest of the world, I refer to the definition as presented by Wikipedia.

Is this something we can discuss?

Like Martin Gisser says, fascism is on the rise in the US, and there are some clear parallels with the rise of fascism in Germany of the 1930s. What caused the rise of fascism back then, and what is causing it now?

[Susan Anderson]

@Rob Dekker

Susan, I fully agree with your statement that "The worst Democrat is way better than any Republican".

But I fought long and hard (on-line and in person) against the Keystone XL, and I felt betrayed by Democrats voting in favor of it. And it is not that they had to. Most of the Democrats that voted to expedite the Keystone XL were from states where the Keystone XL did not even pass through.

Knowing that the Keystone XL is not only quite literally a danger to global warming, but even more so as a symbol, and against a movement that got thousands of people to protest in the streets, why on Earth would they vote in favor of it ?

For example, why did Bob Casey of Pennsylvania vote to expedite the Keystone XL ?

I respect the League of Conservation Voters, but these Democrats made a huge mistake.

So did I, and so was I disappointed. I have friends who went, and I gave money (always the easy path if you have it), and one friend of a friend was beaten resulting in broken bones by the authorities.

I'm trying to extricate myself from this discussion (and Russiagate and Trump presidency) because I feel my time is better spent supporting the resistance elsewhere. But I am seriously bothered by Neven's absolute conviction that most Democrats support neoliberalism. I can only repeat, and I know I won't be believed, that:

Almost all Democrats are not neoliberals. Reagan was the original model of a modern neoliberal, and the Republican party has embraced it wholesale. What Democrats are now is a minority, which is being blamed for what the majority is doing.

While I might not agree with the compromises they have made, there are only two Democrats I want to see out, Manchin (definitely) and Heitkamp (probably). Heitkamp is being seriously challenged by the worst kind of Republican, which would be even worse.

Of course if all you magic workers could replace all the candidates you despise with better progressives and they won, I would be overjoyed.* There is a bit of that going around, but these candidates, in their thousands, are almost all defeating Republicans, not Democrats!

[edit: *I'm even trying to help a few of them.]

[ivica]

sidd wrote (read the whole post [/b]here):

...I have remarked before that very few on this forum know any Trump voters, and fewer yet know any well. Coincidentally, as I was reading Mr Gisser's comment, two of them walked through my door. For convenience, I shall call them Pat and Mike. My computer was using a TV as a screen so they happened to see it.

I know both of them for a long time, and by their expressions I could tell that they had Opinions Which Would Shortly be Expressed. But being practical men with a keen sense of priorities, they held their peace, found the beer, then rolled a huge spliff, and gurgled and smoked for a while.

Both are melanin challenged...

Am I late, any beer left for me?

--ivica < Living under reign of religion of money >

[gerontocrat]

That Piketty paper is good, as is all his work. I attach some figures:

sidd

Below I attach the last table in your post. In My (not very)Humble Opinion the data is correct, the interpretation is total junk.

From 1861 to 1865 the USofA had a Civil War for two main reasons:-
- Seceding from the Union. (E pluribus unum was adopted as a national motto in 1776 and is now found on the Great Seal of the United States and on United States currency,
- Slavery.

The South was dominated by Democrats, the North Republican (1861 President Abraham Lincoln, Republican, takes office: The Stars and Bars is adopted as the flag of the Confederate States of America.)

The South voted Democrat no matter what for many years - "Filthy Northern Republican carpet-baggers".
The North voted Republican - "Closet Democrat slavers".

I read old novels as as way of looking at history. I recommend "A Hoosier Chronicle" by Meredith Nicholson, published March 1912 (for many reasons***). In it one of the characters, a Democrat comments that for some in Indiana to be a Democrat is to be a traitor to the USA (nearly 50 years after the Civil War).

I was brought up in the UK in the 60's, the civil rights movement (and the Vietnam War) was meat and drink to us. Who can forget (most people) George Corley Wallace Jr., the Governor of Alabama infamous for declaring in his 1963 Inaugural Address that he stood for "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". It was only after Lyndon Johnson, Democrat President forced through the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 that the Southern Democrats started to lose their unwholesome domination of the Democrat Caucus.

And Piketty thinks it was economics that determined voting patterns (OK yes, it was a part but not the real story). To repeat, I am sure that the data in the table is correct. Piketty's interpretation thereof is - crap. Man does not live by bread alone.

*** A Hoosier Chronicle -Why I liked it so much***

The quote on the front page:-

The wise know that foolish legislation is a rope of sand which perishes in the twisting; that the State must follow and not lead the character and progress of the citizen; the strongest usurper is quickly got rid of; and they only who build on Ideas, build for eternity; and that the form of government which prevails is the expression of what cultivation exists in the population which permits it. The law is only a memorandum. We are superstitious, and esteem the statute somewhat; so much life as it has in the character of living men is its force.

EMERSON: Politics.

- the Author's belief (hope?) that a new breed of younger politicians (Democrat and Republican) were emerging that would release the legislature from the Party Machines,

- that a small university such as Madison College still believed that its purpose was to give knowledge to its students.

Where are the Washingtons, Franklins of today?

[TerryM]

Some more good news:

Neven
It's only good news if Democratic candidates take away the message that by ditching their Corporate donors, they can and will win election after election.


In my perfect world the Dems would sweep all of the state and federal races. If they insist on running the same old campaigns, funded by the same old donors, they simply won't win.
They won't be able to run on single payer healthcare, higher minimum wages, or even for something as basic as a 6 month maternity leave.
Campaign on those three issues and watch the votes come in.


Fighting the Republicans, using Republican issues, while scuffling for Republican voters, is a damn hard sell. The base is in the factories and the fields. When we lose the Bubba vote, we anoint another Trump.
Terry

[Neven]

I'm trying to extricate myself from this discussion (and Russiagate and Trump presidency) because I feel my time is better spent supporting the resistance elsewhere. But I am seriously bothered by Neven's absolute conviction that most Democrats support neoliberalism. I can only repeat, and I know I won't be believed, that:

Almost all Democrats are not neoliberals. Reagan was the original model of a modern neoliberal, and the Republican party has embraced it wholesale. What Democrats are now is a minority, which is being blamed for what the majority is doing.

That's why I suggested we talk about neoliberalism and whether or not it has been supported on the policy front by the Democratic Party since the Clinton era, or perhaps even earlier than that. And as I said the definition of neoliberalism has changed over the years, and the meaning of it is less clearly defined in the US, or more ambiguous, than elsewhere.

So, first we need to define what we mean by neoliberalism (I posted the Wikipedia entry) and then how much that definition can be applied to the Democratic Party in its presentation and voting/legislative record.

Please, don't get upset so easily. The war isn't won or lost here.

[sidd]

gerontocrat writes: Re: Piketty(2018) last figure:

--begin quote

... the data is correct, the interpretation is total junk.

From 1861 to 1865 the USofA had a Civil War for two main reasons:-
- Seceding from the Union. (E pluribus unum was adopted as a national motto in 1776 and is now found on the Great Seal of the United States and on United States currency,
- Slavery.

The South was dominated by Democrats, the North Republican (1861 President Abraham Lincoln, Republican, takes office: The Stars and Bars is adopted as the flag of the Confederate States of America.)

The South voted Democrat no matter what for many years - "Filthy Northern Republican carpet-baggers".
The North voted Republican - "Closet Democrat slavers".

...

And Piketty thinks it was economics that determined voting patterns

--end quote

As I read it, Piketty agrees with you. Both models he proposes have mor controllling factors than economic inequality. He states explicitly in his conclusion:

" • Politics has never been a simple poor vs rich conflict; one needs to look more carefully at the content of political cleavages"

sidd

[sidd]

Re: "sidd, you may want to gently tell your buds ..."

Heehee. They know me as well as I know them and are quite aware of my opinions ...

Actually, I think they know Trump's a con artist. They just figured his con better for them that the proposed alternative. They will vote democrat if you can convince em. Some of them voted for Obama a couple times.

It's just hard convincing them of anything. As I mentioned, they are very, very sceptical; with good reason, they've been ripped off all their lives.

sidd

[Neven]

What is their opinion of Sanders and his message, sidd?

[sidd]

They like Sanders, might have voted for him if he had been a choice.

sidd

[Rob Dekker]

Re: Casey pipeline vote

Follow the money:

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00027503

top contributor: Exelon

That's what I initially thought too, sidd. Some sort of direct quid pro quo.

But a closer look is casting doubt on that theory.
For starters, Exelon linked contributions are only $70,080 for Casey, while he raised millions overall.
Secondly, $63,580 of that $70,080 was raised by Exelon employees.
These are just people (individuals) working for Exelon companies.

So how would that have worked ?

Did Casey think : "Oh. Look at that. Exelon employees donated $63,580 to me. Well, let me go and vote in favor of the Keystone XL then, and let me make some false statements to the press to validate my vote".

That simply does not make any sense to me.

Something else must have been going on that led Casey to vote against party line in favor of a project that had no benefit at all to him, his constituents, or his state.

I think the answer can be found in pro-Keystone XL (TransCanada) propaganda. Of which there was a LOT at the time.

[SteveMDFP]

"Who wrote that ?" came the question I had been expecting.

Now you're in trouble, Martin! 

You have to be something of a policy and politics geek to appreciate just how toxic Trump is to the US and all of humanity.  Not everyone is going to be a policy and politics geek.

I repeat:

Maybe we should talk some more about neoliberalism. Like I alluded in my comment to Rob, it's possible that people who object to this discussion of Corporate Democrats so vehemently, actually don't see much of a problem with neoliberalism. Or they don't think that the Democratic Party has largely supported neoliberal economic policies in the last 30 odd years.

And to be clear, as the term 'neoliberal' is less clearly defined in the US as it is in the rest of the world, I refer to the definition as presented by Wikipedia.

Is this something we can discuss?

Like Martin Gisser says, fascism is on the rise in the US, and there are some clear parallels with the rise of fascism in Germany of the 1930s. What caused the rise of fascism back then, and what is causing it now?

Neven, you keep asserting that the Democratic party is currently neoliberal in direction.  Some of us keep disputing the assertion.  I've conceded that Bill Clinton fit the bill.  I've conceded that Obama's specific policy for the Trans-Pacific Partnership fit the bill (as well as the European one).

If you look at Pelosi and Reid's legislative record, I see some votes I'd disagree with, some strongly, but I don't see anything I'd call neo-liberal.

Bill Clinton developed his Third Way really as a way to win in elections.  He almost threw away the baby with the bathwater with that approach.  When he was in power, some of us called him the best Republican President we'd ever had.

I think Obama's TPP was also something that incorporated neoliberalism as a strategic tool for passage, not an end in itself.  His goal was pretty clearly to hem-in China's growing influence on the global stage.  That, in my view, would definitely have been horrible.  Extending corporate power to hem in China's power is like jumping out of the frying pan and directly into the fire.

So now Bill Clinton is irrelevant (Hillary is also irrelevant) and so is Obama.  The specific neoliberal policies of these two have been discarded by the Democrats.  What *specific* policies, legislation, and votes can you cite to prove that today's Democratic Party is in any way neoliberal?  So what's your evidence to the contrary?

[Neven]

Thanks for the reply, Steve.

First we need to agree on what definition of neoliberalism to follow, and then we can see up to what point specific policies, votes and legislation by various Democrats fit that definition. Along the way we can also discuss whether these various Democrats are not corrupt, but simply believe in the narrative that neoliberal policies are the way to go (which might also be the case for those who maintain there is no such thing as Corporate Democrats, or at least they're not a real problem). Do you agree with the Wikipedia definition I posted?

But to jump ahead, based on your comment, I would think that people like Pelosi, Schumer and Feinstein have always more or less aligned with Clinton and Obama. Do you mean to say there has always been a rift within the Democratic Party (besides the one with more leftist progressives, Berniebros, etc), and Democratic Party leadership is now glad to be rid of the irrelevant Clintons and Obama, so that they can steer away from the neoliberal policies of the past?

And are the Clintons and Obama truly irrelevant? I've heard that Obama personally took care of getting Tom Perez elected as chair of the DNC, because otherwise Keith Ellison would have gotten the position.