"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Hillary Clinton Seems Determined To Give Her Old Pal Trump A Second Term
>
Hillary would have certainly preferred to win the presidency in 2016 instead of seeing her old friend-- did you go to any of his weddings?-- win. No, absolutely she was in it to win it (for herself, herself, herself, herself). And Bernie, after making a strong and compelling case for himself in the primaries, worked harder for her victory than anyone else who almost got his party's nomination-- especially considering how her establishment allies like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Harry Reid stole the nomination for her. So how is she repaying Bernie for all the hours logged on the road for her in 2016? Remember, while Hillary did about a dozen events for Obama after he beat her in 2008, Bernie did over 40 events for her-- everywhere her campaign asked him to go. She;'s a sore loser and many people thought he shouldn't have listed a finger for her. But he did-- again and again and again. She's an unappreciative monster. Hillary is one of the most despised figures in American politics today. Much of it is unfair-- but not all of it. Every time she shows up on TV or in the press, she reminds some people-- many people-- exactly who they think the greater evil was/is. She has an explosive 4 part Hulu mini-series coming out just before the election. No one in America can be happier about the timing than Donald J. Trump. The series, which begins running March 6, but debuts next Saturday at the Sundance Film Festival, was all her idea, too. She pitched it to Hulu; they didn't pitch it to her. The hot mess of a puff piece is called Hillary. None of the villains of the series-- Trump, Monica Lewinsky (whose life Hillary viciously and consciously destroyed) nor Bernie-- were asked to participate. The real life Hillary sat down, unbelievably bitter, for an interview a few days ago in Pasadena with the Hollywood Reporter's Lacey Rose, who lobbed some very softball questions in her direction.
Rose: In the doc, you're brutally honest on Sanders: "He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it." That assessment still hold? Hillary: Yes, it does. Rose If he gets the nomination, will you endorse and campaign for him? Hillary: I'm not going to go there yet. We're still in a very vigorous primary season. I will say, however, that it's not only him, it's the culture around him. It's his leadership team. It's his prominent supporters. It's his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture-- not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it. And I don't think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you either don't know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you're just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [Harris] or after Elizabeth [Warren]. I think that that's a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions.
I really wish that Rose would have asked her who she really likes better-- deep down-- Trump or Bernie. Another reporter should ask her that question while she's on the road promoting this horrible shit show of hers.
An NBC News reporter caught up with Bernie in the Senate and asked what he thought about Hillary's typically ugly smear. He didn't seem to take it too seriously: "On a good day, my wife likes me, so let’s clear the air on that one... My focus today is on a monumental moment in American history: The impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Together, we are going to go forward and defeat the most dangerous president in American history." When asked by the reporter why he thinks Clinton is still talking about 2016, he responded, "That’s a good question. You should ask her."
Former Republican activists, like Hillary, especially crooked multimillionaires like her, hate everything Bernie stands for. It would be inconceivable that someone like her would ever support him. She has always hated working people and despised their plight-- exactly like Trump does-- so a working class candidate like Bernie is someone she intuitively wants to sabotage. If he loses to Trump, she will go down in American political history as the Nosferatu of the 2020 election.
Mitch McTurtle-- The Personification Of Death Itself
>
Every year, Morning Consult puts out a national survey of all 50 states to determine how their residents feel about the states' two senators. And every year Bernie is the most beloved and McTurtle is the most detested. This year's survey, out this week, was no different: Bernie #1, McTurtle #100. Thinking about the 2020 elections, these are the seven senators who will be facing the voters next year with bad approve/disapprove ratios:
Last week, the unpopular McTurtle was campaigning in front of a small group of right-wing Kentucky fat-cats when he boasted how he would continue gumming up the system next year-- if he's reelected-- to make sure no progressive legislation passing by the House is voted on in the Senate:
"If I'm still the majority leader of the Senate after next year, none of those things are going to pass the Senate. They won't even be voted on. So think of me as the Grim Reaper: the guy who is going to make sure that socialism doesn't land on the president's desk."
CBS News reported that "before referring to himself as the personification of death, McConnell, the White House's most powerful ally on Capitol Hill, accused Democrats in Congress and those running for president of endorsing a fringe, far-left agenda that will imperil the American economy. 'You pass the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, you have fundamentally changed this country, fundamentally changed it into an unproductive place with significant unemployment and huge problems,' McConnell said, noting that some of his colleagues in the Senate who are running for president, like Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, have vouched their support for both proposals. McConnell said progressive platforms are being touted by most mainstream Democrats, not just 'some young woman from New York who just got elected to Congress,' presumably referring to freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who represents parts of Queens and the Bronx. 'It's much broader than that,' McConnell said." Not much new there. When haven't conservatives smeared progressive proposals to help working families as "socialism" or "communism" or whatever nonsense popped into their minds? Versions of McTurtle from the 1700s on have fought tooth and nail to prevent progressive ideas from taking hold. A decade ago, Mike Lux did a great book about it, The Progressive Revolution, in which he laid out many of the progressive initiatives that entailed winning bloody battles (sometimes literally) against conservative opponents. These are the battles we won against the McTurtles of American history:
• The American Revolution • The Bill of Rights and the forging of a democracy • Universal white male suffrage • Public education • The emancipation of the slaves • The national park system • Food safety • The breakup of monopolies • The Homestead Act • Land grant universities • Rural electrification • Women’s suffrage • The abolition of child labor • The eight hour workday • The minimum wage • Social Security • Civil rights for minorities and women • Voting rights for minorities and the poor • Cleaning up our air, our water, and toxic dump sites • Consumer product safety • Medicare and Medicaid
Yes, Republicans referred to the dozen or so final ones as "socialism" and used the same scaremongering McTurtle uses about them today when they fought them back in the day. Today Trump and McTurtle aren't content blocking new progressive proposals, they are working actively to roll back the fruits of progressives victories going back over a century. As repulsive and corrupt as the DC Democrats are, they are basically what stands between us and the conservative vision of America that includes none of that progress. Look, I went to high school with Chuck Schumer; believe me when I tell you I despise him far more than you do. But Friday he was correct when he said that McTurtle has turned the Senate into "a legislative graveyard... Leader McConnell ought to allow debate and amendments immediately-- which Democrats would welcome-- on commonsense, House-passed bills on democracy reform, combating the gun violence epidemic, health care, and so much more... On getting anything done to help the American people, Leader McConnell and the Senate Republicans in the first 100 days get an 'F'." Earlier Friday, Pelosi-- who has plenty of flaws and shouldn't be speaker-- also took on McTurtle's decision to play the Grim Reaper. In a letter to House Democrats, she blasted McTurtle's approach to making himself into an obstacle to all progressive legislation:
In our first 100 days, the House was busy passing vital bipartisan legislation that addresses the issues that matter in the lives of the American people. The House has sent the Senate legislation that has strong bipartisan support across the country, consistent with our For The People agenda. We urge Senator McConnell to take up the legislation as soon as possible.
• H.R. 1 – the For The People Act to restore confidence in our democracy; • H.R. 8 & H.R. 1112 – the Bipartisan Background Checks Act and the Enhanced Background Checks Act, commonsense gun violence prevention measures; • H.R. 7 – the Paycheck Fairness Act, to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work; • H.R. 1585 – Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, a strong improvement and long-term reauthorization of VAWA; • H.R. 1644 – the Save The Internet Act to restore vital Net Neutrality protections. In the coming weeks, we will be taking action on: • The Protecting People with Pre-existing Conditions Act and other legislation to lower health costs by reducing prescription drug prices; • H.R. 9 – the Climate Action Now Act to preserve the Paris Climate Accord and lay the foundation for more action; • H.R. 5 – the Equality Act to end discrimination against LGBTQ Americans; • H.R. 6 – the American Dream and Promise Act to protect Dreamers, TPS and DED recipients.
Our progress For The People stands in stark contrast to the inaction of the GOP-controlled Senate. The Republican Senate needs to wake up, and vote on these urgently needed bills immediately. If they don’t like our bipartisan bills, then they can pass their own version and we can go to conference. Leader McConnell has declared himself the “grim reaper” of these House bills to make progress for working families. We will show him that these bills are alive and well with the American people. The middle class and America don’t want the Senate to be a legislative graveyard for so many of these important issues-- they want action.
That video is the whole 30 minute CBS This Morning interview John Dickerson did with Bernie early yesterday. He explains why you should vote for him as part of a grassroots, non-Beltway, revolution. He doesn't want to criticize his Democratic opponents but I'll reiterate that had we paid attention to the centrist, "moderate" politicians in the mid-1770s, we still might be 13 British colonies. If we had paid attention to the centrist, "moderate" politicians in the mid-1800s, slavery might still exist. Had paid attention to the centrist, "moderate" politicians in the mid-1940s, we wouldn't have Social Security today. Had paid attention to the centrist, "moderate" politicians in the mid-1960s, we wouldn't have Medicare today. Moderates don't get the big things done. It's always "aspirational" or it's "too hard." This is the letter Bernie sent his supporters from 2016:
I am writing to let you know I have decided to run for president of the United States. I am asking you to join me today as part of an unprecedented and historic grassroots campaign that will begin with at least a million people from across the country. Please join our campaign for president on day one and commit to doing what it takes to win this election. Our campaign is not only about defeating Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in modern American history. It is not only about winning the Democratic nomination and the general election. Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice. Our campaign is about taking on the powerful special interests that dominate our economic and political life. I'm talking about Wall Street, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry, the military industrial complex, the private prison industry and the large multinational corporations that exert such an enormous influence over our lives. Our campaign is about redoubling our efforts to end racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry and all forms of discrimination. Our campaign is about creating a vibrant democracy with the highest voter turnout of any major country while we end voter suppression, Citizens United and outrageous levels of gerrymandering. Our campaign is about creating a government and economy that work for the many, not just the few. We are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. We should not have grotesque levels of wealth inequality in which three billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of the country. We should not have 30 million Americans without any health insurance, even more who are underinsured and a nation in which life expectancy is actually in decline. We should not have an economy in which tens of millions of workers earn starvation wages and half of older workers have no savings as they face retirement. We should not have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth and a dysfunctional childcare system which is unfair to both working parents and their children. We should not have a regressive tax system in which large, profitable corporations like Amazon pay nothing in federal income taxes. Make no mistake about it. The powerful special interests in this country have unbelievable power and they want to maintain the status quo. They have unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns and lobbying and have huge influence over the media and political parties. The only way we will win this election and create a government and economy that work for all is with a grassroots movement-- the likes of which has never been seen in American history. They may have the money and power. We have the people. That is why we need one million Americans who will commit themselves to this campaign. Stand with me as we fight to win the Democratic nomination and the general election. Add your name to join this campaign and say you are willing to do the hard work necessary to transform our country. You know as well as I do that we are living in a pivotal and dangerous moment in American history. We are running against a president who is a pathological liar, a fraud, a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe and someone who is undermining American democracy as he leads us in an authoritarian direction. I’m running for president because, now more than ever, we need leadership that brings us together-- not divides us up. Women and men, black, white, Latino, Native American, Asian American, gay and straight, young and old, native born and immigrant. Now is the time for us to stand together.
I’m running for president because we need leadership that will fight for working families and the shrinking middle class, not just the 1 percent. We need a president who understands that we can create millions of good-paying jobs, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and construct the affordable housing we desperately need. I'm running for president because we need trade policies that reflect the interests of workers and not multi-national corporations. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, provide pay equity for women and guarantee all workers paid family and medical leave. I'm running for president because we need to understand that artificial intelligence and robotics must benefit the needs of workers, not just corporate America and those who own that technology. I'm running for president because a great nation is judged not by how many billionaires and nuclear weapons it has, but by how it treats the most vulnerable-- the elderly, the children, our veterans, the sick and the poor. I’m running for president because we need to make policy decisions based on science, not politics. We need a president who understands that climate change is real, is an existential threat to our country and the entire planet, and that we can generate massive job creation by transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. I’m running for president because the time is long overdue for the United States to join every other major country on Earth and guarantee health care to all people as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare-for-all program. I’m running for president because we need to take on the outrageous level of greed of the pharmaceutical industry and lower prescription drug prices in this country. I'm running for president because we need to have the best educated workforce in the world. It is totally counterproductive for our future that millions of Americans are carrying outrageous levels of student debt, while many others cannot afford the high cost of higher education. That is why we need to make public colleges and universities tuition free and lower student debt. I’m running for president because we must defend a woman’s right to control her own body against massive political attacks taking place at the local, state and federal level. I'm running for president because we need real criminal justice reform. We need to invest in jobs and education for our kids, not more jails and incarceration. We need to end the destructive "war on drugs," eliminate private prisons and cash bail and bring about major police department reform. I'm running for president because we need to end the demonization of undocumented immigrants in this country and move to comprehensive immigration reform. We need to provide immediate legal status for the young people eligible for the DACA program and develop a humane policy for those at the border who seek asylum. I'm running for president because we must end the epidemic of gun violence in this country. We need to take on the NRA, expand background checks, end the gun show loophole and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons. I'm running for president because we need a foreign policy which focuses on democracy, human rights, diplomacy and world peace. The United States must lead the world in improving international cooperation in the fight against climate change, militarism, authoritarianism and global wealth inequality. ...Needless to say, there is a lot of frightening and bad news in this world. Now, let me give you some very good news. Three years ago, during our 2016 campaign, when we brought forth our progressive agenda we were told that our ideas were "radical" and "extreme." We were told that Medicare for All, a $15 an hour minimum wage, free tuition at public colleges and universities, aggressively combating climate change, demanding that the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes, were all concepts that the American people would never accept. Well, three years have come and gone. And, as result of millions of Americans standing up and fighting back, all of these policies and more are now supported by a majority of Americans. Together, you and I and our 2016 campaign began the political revolution. Now, it is time to complete that revolution and implement the vision that we fought for. So here is my question for you: Will you stand with me as part of a million person grassroots movement which can not only win the Democratic primary, not only win the general election, but most importantly help transform this country so that, finally, we have a government that works for all of us and not just the few? Together we can create a nation that leads the world in the struggle for peace and for economic, racial, social and environmental justice. And together we can defeat Donald Trump and repair the damage he has done to our country. Brothers and sisters, if we stand together, there is no limit to what we can accomplish. I hope you will join me.
Matt Taibbi and Rolling Stonewelcomed Bernie to the campaign trail yesterday. It's not a fawning puff piece and it's very much worth reading. Taibbi noted that "In announcing his campaign four years ago on the shore of Lake Champlain in Vermont, Sanders laid out a message-based campaign that he said was not about him, 'not about Hillary Clinton,' and 'not about Jeb Bush or anyone else.' This time around, his opening email seems crafted to leave the impression that winning, and beating Donald Trump in particular, is central to his thinking. He writes about 'running against a president who is a pathological liar, a fraud, a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe and someone who is undermining American democracy,' adding that Trump is leading us 'in an authoritarian direction.'"
That primary isn't going to be about Bernie running again specific opponents like Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren (or even Status Quo Joe Biden, I assume) than what Taibbi calls, "against decades of pro-corporate policies endorsed by both parties, dating back to NAFTA and the deregulation of Wall Street. This system-wide criticism has not endeared him to party leaders. To say Sanders is a controversial figure in Democratic circles is a great understatement. Campaign post-mortems from 2016 like Shattered and Chasing Hillary, as well as the WikiLeaks dump of DNC and John Podesta emails, made clear what everyone in Washington already knew: the apparatchiks who run the Party and sit in Democrat-aligned think-tanks dislike Sanders with the heat of a thousand suns. In some quarters, he may be resented more than Trump, among other things because he represents a brand of politics that takes aim at many Beltway sinecures." Taibbi noted that "Sanders can expect diffident treatment at best by the bulk of the commentators on TV and at papers like the Washington Post and the New York Times. I've watched it all day yesterday on MSNBC until Chris Hayes' show last night.
Nancy Jacobson-- it doesn't get worse in US politics
Marie Newman was on schedule to defeat anti-Choice, anti-gay, corrupt Blue Dog Dan Lipinski in Chicago in the March 20 Democratic primary. Marie had galvanized progressives locally and nationally and raised almost $1.5 million, more than the reactionary, Machine-backed incumbent. Suddenly a Republican virulently anti-Choice 501C, the Susan B. Anthony List jumped in with over $100,000 in anti-Newman ads. No one can remember them ever spending money on behalf of a Democrat before. This cycle, they spent $1,032,404 on campaigns and the only money they spent to help a Democrat went to Lipinski. But they weren't the only group funneling Republican money into Lipinski's campaign in a deep blue (D+6) district. A network of SuperPACs funded by GOP billionaires and directed by two of the most venal characters in Democratic politics, Nancy Jacobson and her repulsive husband, Mark Penn from the Clinton/Fox wing of the Democratic Party, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars smearing Newman on behalf of Lipinski. He pulled out a last minute win:
Blue America and other progressive groups have been urging her to give it another try in 2020. There is far more awareness of who Jacobson and Penn are and what their dark money No Labels organization is up to. Last March basically no one was calling them out but DWT; today the growing awareness precludes them launching any more sneak attacks on progressive Democrats. Yesterday, Sam Stein and Lachian Markay, reporting for the Daily Beast blew their cover for the widest audience yet-- How No Labels Went From Preaching Unity to Practicing the Dark Arts. "No Labels," wrote Stein and Markay, "took the unconventional position that Democrats were to blame for not being more willing to work with Republicans in the destruction of their party’s signature piece of modern legislation (the Affordable Care Act)... The group, which was founded as a champion of political bipartisanship, has been quietly courting donations from some of the most notoriously partisan money men and women in politics." [NOTE: congratulations to Sam Stein for not referring to Jacobson and her corrupt, right-of-center candidates as "moderates."]
According to internal documents obtained by The Daily Beast, No Labels encouraged financiers known for backing hyperpartisan causes to back its own super PACs. Among those courted were individuals who’ve bankrolled massive parts of the Republican Party’s infrastructure, including David Koch, former AIG head Hank Greenberg, and billionaire hedge-fund manager Paul Singer; as well as top supporters of President Donald Trump, including PayPal founder Peter Thiel, businessman Foster Friess, and Home Depot founder Ken Langone. No Labels also courted liberal-minded moneymen, including Michael Vachon, a top political adviser to George Soros (one of the biggest funders of Democratic and progressive causes) and Reid Hoffman, an investor and entrepreneur who has called Trump “worse than useless.” The group also targeted Wendi Murdoch (ex-wife of Rupert and rumored Ivanka Trump pal), uber-agent Ari Emanuel, and Dallas Mavericks owner and oft-rumored presidential aspirant Mark Cuban. Another possible 2020 candidate, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, was also among dozens of high net-worth individuals approached about donating to No Labels’ super PACs. Most of those targeted for financial support didn’t end up donating to No Labels super PACs. But some notable names did, including former Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, who was encouraged to donate by former Democrat-turned-independent Senator Joe Lieberman, according to internal records. The attempt to recruit these financiers was, according to sources, part of a concerted effort by No Labels to steer emphasis away from its nonprofit arm and toward campaign operations designed to boost preferred political candidates and target those deemed too extreme or impediments to its policy agenda. By the end of the 2018 cycle, six No Labels-affiliated super PACs-- No Labels Action, Forward Not Back, United Together, Govern or Go Home, Citizens for a Strong America, and United for Progress-- had collectively raised more than $11 million from 53 individual donors. The average contribution to the groups was about $124,000, illustrating their reliance on high-dollar donors rather than grassroots financial support. To court those deep-pocketed donors, No Labels leaned on individuals with ties to other prominent potential givers. The group appears to have sought support from Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential candidate who was just elected to the U.S. Senate, though it’s unclear whether it hoped that support would be financial, political, or both. In internal company notes, No Labels proposed having Lieberman contact Brad Bloom-- the leader of the private-equity firm Berkshire Partners and a high-dollar donor to a pro-Romney super PAC in 2012-- “to discuss Mitt” and arrange a meeting with other potential supporters in Boston. Internal documents also note that another super PAC donor prospect, financier David Nierenberg, is a “close friend of Mitt Romney.” As it privately sought more money for its campaign activities, No Labels also grew more outwardly political. In early 2016, as the presidential primaries raged, No Labels hosted an event in New Hampshire, in which it applauded six candidates for taking its “Problem Solver Promise.” Individuals inside the group were rankled that Donald Trump was among those afforded the distinction. They also were disturbed by the price-tag of the event, which Jacobson confirmed was more than $1 million.
Jacobson-- like her disgusting husband-- is a money-hungry crook and rip-off artist who steals every cent she can get her grubby paws on. She is notorious for ripping off her donors. Jacobson and Penn are considered the two most personally dishonest-- and sestructive-- characters in the contemporary political landscape. Everything they do is to line their own pockets.
“The more one looks under the rock, the more one turns over that rock, it is not an attractive picture. It is a big fundraising operation run with limited results,” said one former No Labels official. “You go in first, there are donors, they’re having discussions and you think it’s healthy. And then you’re in it for a few months and you wonder, what are we doing?” The overtly political approach has also landed No Labels in legal drama. The group is being sued by the firm Applecart, formerly one of its top political consultants, which has accused No Labels of not paying them for millions of dollars of work and of firing them in favor of consultants with personal ties to Jacobson. No Labels alleges Applecart’s performance was error-filled and ineffective and in an emailed statement, Dan Webb, counsel for No Labels’ political groups, blamed Applecart for the leaks of internal documents. “No Labels is currently in litigation with Applecart, which limits what we can say at this time,” Webb wrote. “Having botched their work for the PACs, Applecart has chosen to sue their political clients and now, apparently, to leak emails and other confidential information in an effort to harm the PACs and No Labels.” A spokesperson for Applecart declined to comment, but did direct The Daily Beast to a glowing testimonial that Jacobson had previously given for its website. At the center of No Labels and its evolution is Jacobson. The group’s founder and president is one of the most plugged-in behind-the-scenes operators in all of Washington. At 56 years old, she has been in Democratic politics for decades, working for, among others, Gary Hart and Bill Clinton. Along the way, she served as the Democratic National Committee finance director, where she made a host of connections that would prove advantageous in years to come. “As a female, it was a way to get a seat at the table,” she said of her time as a Democratic fundraiser. '
A proud, self-professed centrist, she said she felt disillusioned with the bitterness of politics when her last and closest boss, former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), chose to leave office. “This process wore him down,” she recalled. So Jacobson set out to tone down the rancor. In December 2010, Jacobson launched No Labels. The defining purpose was to “advocate & educate for greater bipartisan cooperation throughout all levels of government.” Though the launch event featured citizens from all 50 states, the concept was also catnip for the wealthy, who tend to see two solutions to every thorny problem: stoic leadership and gobs of money. ...The group also enlisted some of its top supporters to try to court high net-worth individuals on its behalf. Lieberman and Bayh have been integral to those efforts, personally soliciting donors on phone calls and in meetings. And they’ve been remarkably successful. According to internal documents obtained by the Daily Beast, some of the most prominent executives from Fortune 500 companies and leading financial-services firms have contributed to No Labels’ 501(c)(4) dark-money group and its affiliated 501(c)(3) charitable arm. They include:
• Josh Bekenstein, CEO of Bain Capital, who gave $250,000 in 2015. • John Douglas Arnold, head of Centaurus Advisors, LLC, who gave $200,000 in 2017. • John Catsimatidis, president, chairman, and CEO of Gristedes Foods, who gave $100,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.” • Douglas Durst, president of the Durst Organization, who gave $10,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.” • Carl Ferenbach, co-founder of Berkshire Partners LLC, who gave $20,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.” • Former Rep. James Charles “Jim” Greenwood (R-PA), who gave $15,000 in 2016. • Kerry Healey, former lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, who have $25,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.” • George Hume, president and chief executive of Basic American Foods, who gave $25,000 in 2017. • Ted Kellner, a Milwaukee business executive, who gave $20,000 in 2017. • Franklin Pitch Johnson, Silicon Valley venture-capital pioneer, who gave $25,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.” • Howard Marks, co-founder and co-chairman of Oaktree Capital Management, who gave $125,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.” • Nelson Peltz, founding partner of Trian Fund Management, who gave $500,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.” • Marc J. Rowan, co-founder of the private-equity firm Apollo Global Management, who gave $150,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.” • Andrew Tisch, co-chair of Loews Corporation, who gave $62,500 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.” • Christy Ruth Walton, a Walmart heiress, who gave $25,000 in 2017. • Eric Zinterhofer, founding partner of Searchlight Capital Partners, who gave $50,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.”
All told, the document revealed that donors had pledged to give $4,792,000 to No Labels non-profit arm in 2017. The source who provided these documents asked that they not be published in full so as to not reveal their origins. Metadata confirms that they were company documents, as they were last edited in March 2017 by No Labels Chief of Staff Sasha Borowsky. While Lieberman and Bayh’s association with the group, and the impression that it’s backed by some of the biggest names in finance, has given No Labels a stately reputation, behind the scenes, numerous ex-officials say the organization more closely resembles a disorganized campaign apparatus. Ex-aides said there is incredibly high turnover. And according to one former staffer, No Labels executives would ask employees to write positive reviews on the job-posting and workplace review site Glassdoor to counteract the more numerous bad ones. Asked if that was the case, Jacobson simply shrugged and casually said, “yeah.” There have also been internal disagreements over the organizational mission. In one March 2018 email, Ryan Clancy, the group’s top strategist, expressed fears to Jacobson that Pelosi would advise her caucus to shut out No Labels if they went after her. She could, Clancy wrote, “go all Harry Reid on us.” The reference was to an episode that remains part of internal No Labels lore. During the 2014 cycle, the group endorsed Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) in his challenge to Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), after the congressman embraced their “Problem Solver” label and Udall declined to do so. Then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was furious and, according to his former communications director Adam Jentleson, leaned on his members to dissociate themselves from the group. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) subsequently did, noting in part that Udall’s record was strong on bipartisanship. “It seemed like they wanted to flex, to say if you’re not willing to be a ‘problem solver’ they might throw you under the bus,” said a source who previously worked for a member of the No Labels’ Problem Solver caucus. “The message was that all the bipartisanship didn’t count if you didn’t accept their branding.” But instead of tamping down the politics after that 2014 episode, the group picked it up. And some officials say it has coincided with a larger role for Penn. Best known for his work for both the Bill and Hillary Clinton presidential campaigns, Penn’s reputation is that of a numbers-crunching centrist who championed the concept of “micro-targeting” voters by their commercial, cultural, and political interests. His firm advised numerous clients before he left to do a stint at Microsoft. In 2015, he founded the Stagwell Group, a private equity firm. And within months, the firm had acquired SKDKnickerbocker, a powerhouse Democratic consultancy with a number of executives who worked on or with Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Though he has no formal affiliation with No Labels, Penn’s imprints are evident. He was once listed as a press contact for the group’s tax exempt arm, The New Center. And according to a source who worked with No Labels super PACs, Penn and two SKDK executives-- managing director Bill Knapp, a close friend of Jacobson and Penn, and political ad production director Andrew Shipley-- helped produce and place ads, and signed off on their substantive contents. Internal emails sent in 2018 and obtained by the Daily Beast show Shipley editing the contents of one ad subject to Jacobson’s approval. Another shows Shipley briefing No Labels staff on the contents of another ad, and getting direct sign-off from both Jacobson and Penn to put the final product on air. In another email thread, Penn instructed Knapp to “scope” an ad buy for a No Labels super PAC. Asked whether SKDK or another firm would make the actual buy, Penn wrote, “I’ll decide who to use based on which one I like better.” Penn did not respond to a request for comment, though a source confirmed that he did personally see questions pertaining to the role that he has played. His presence within the No Labels orbit has caused a fair amount of consternation there, especially as he has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s 2016 election meddling-- a posture those who’ve worked with Penn assume he has adopted as a way to ingratiate himself with Donald Trump. In statements prepared by No Labels for the Daily Beast, both Lieberman and Bayh took umbrage with any suggestion that Penn was the force behind the curtain; though, of the nearly dozen sources contacted for this piece, none made such a suggestion. Jacobson pushed back herself, calling “the fundamental premise” of such questions both “shameful and sexist.” “If a man were running No Labels, would you be making the same suggestion-- based on little to no evidence-- that his spouse is serving as the puppet master behind the scenes?” Jacobson asked. “Eight years ago, I came up with the idea for No Labels and have led it, as a full time volunteer, ever since. I have put my life into this work with the singular goal of helping to heal our bitterly divided country and to support leaders who want to work together to solve America’s problems. I set the direction for No Labels, not my husband.” Those who have worked with Jacobson said they weren’t surprised by her pushback. Despite running one of Washington’s higher-profile organizations, and being a fixture of the D.C. elite, she rarely does television and is incredibly protective of her reputation. Nor were they surprised when Jacobson personally emailed the Daily Beast hours later, requesting that its reporters come to her office the next day to talk in person. “You don’t know me however you stand ready to tear down the work I have done for the past 10 years because you are being fed stories from disgruntled employees and contractors,” the email read.
Ever watch the Last Kingdom? There's a dramatic scene towards the end of the second episode of the second season where Alexander Dreymon's character, Uhtred, the dashing heathen protagonist, dares the evil Abbot Eadred to "say it one more time and go meet the devil." She he does... and he does. Big deal that he killed a man of God, with big consequences, despite it being the arch-villain of the first couple of episodes of Season Two. I'm guessing that thou shalt not kill abbots was a big megillah back in the 9th Century. Yesterday Billy Graham, who's been hectoring America for as long as I can recall-- not in the 9th Century, but definitely throughout the 20th-- died. No one killed Graham. Like Eadred, Graham was on the wrong side of history. His legacy is that evangelicals stand by while racial tensions and our planet get hot. "The world’s most famous evangelist let his apocalyptic anticipation of the coming kingdom of God blind him to the realities of living in this world." But my old friend in Asheville, Cecil Bothwell, wrote the obit for us:
Billy Graham And The Gospel Of Fear
by Cecil Bothwell
“We are selling the greatest product on earth. Why shouldn’t we promote it as effectively as we promote a bar of soap?” - Billy Graham, Saturday Evening Post, 1963
Billy Graham was a preacher man equally intent on saving souls and soliciting financial support for his ministry. His success at the former is not subject to proof and his success at the latter is unrivaled. He preached to millions on every ice-free continent and led many to his chosen messiah. When Graham succumbed to various ailments this week at the age of 99 he left behind an organization that is said to have touched more people than any other Christian ministry in history, with property, assets and a name-brand worth hundreds of millions. The address lists of contributors alone comprise a mother lode for the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, now headed by his son and namesake, William Franklin Graham, III. Graham also left behind a United States government in which religion plays a far greater role than before he intruded into politics in the 1950s. The shift from secular governance to “In God We Trust” can be laid squarely at this minister’s feet. Graham’s message was principally one of fear: fear of a wrathful god; fear of temptation; fear of communists and socialists; fear of unions; fear of Catholics; fear of homosexuals; fear of racial integration and above all, fear of death. But as a balm for such fears, he promised listeners eternal life, which he said was readily claimed through acceptance of Jesus Christ as one’s savior. Furthermore, he assured listeners that God loved us so much that He created governments, the most blessed form being Western capitalist democracy. To make this point, he frequently quoted Romans 13, particularly the first two verses. In the New American Standard Version of the Bible, they read, “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.” The question of whether this was actually the recorded word of God or a rider inserted into the bill by Roman senators with rather more worldly aims never dimmed Graham’s insistence that all governments are the work of the Almighty. Almost perversely, he even endorsed the arrest of a woman who lofted a Christian banner during his Reagan-era visit to Moscow, opting for the crack-down of “divine” authority over the civil disobedience of a believer. Governments, he reminded his Moscow listeners, do God’s work.
Based on that Biblical mandate for all governments, Graham stood in solid opposition to the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, all but addressed to Graham, King noted, “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.’ … If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.” Fear is the stock in trade of most evangelists, of course, comprising the necessary setup before the pitch. As historian William Martin explained in his 1991 account of Graham’s early sermons, “… even those whose personal lives seemed rich and fulfilling must live in a world filled with terror and threat. As a direct result of sinful humanity’s rebellion against God, our streets have become jungles of terror, mugging, rape, and death. Confusion reigns on campuses as never before. Political leaders live in constant fear of the assassin’s bullet. Racial tension seems certain to unleash titanic forces of hatred and violence. Communism threatens to eradicate freedom from the face of the earth. Small nations are getting the bomb, so that global war seems inevitable. High-speed objects, apparently guided by an unknown intelligence, are coming into our atmosphere for reasons no one understands. Clearly, all signs point to the end of the present world order.
“… Graham’s basic mode of preaching in these early years was assault. … Then, when he had his listeners mentally crouching in terror, aware that all the attractively labeled escape routes-- alcohol, sexual indulgence, riches, psychiatry, education, social-welfare programs, increased military might, the United Nations-- led ultimately to dead ends, he held out the only compass that pointed reliably to the straight and narrow path that leads to personal happiness and lasting peace.”
Columnist and former priest James Carroll had much the same take, noting that “Graham had his finger on the pulse of American fear, and in subsequent years, anti communism occupied the nation’s soul as an avowedly religious obsession. The Red scare at home, unabashed moves toward empire abroad, the phrase ‘under God’ inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance, the scapegoating of homosexuals as ‘security risks,’ an insane accumulation of nuclear weapons, suicidal wars against postcolonial insurgencies in Asia—a set of desperate choices indeed. Through it all, Billy Graham was the high priest of the American crusade, which is why U.S. presidents uniformly sought his blessing.” While Carroll had most of that right, the record suggests that, over and over again, it was Graham who sought presidential blessing, rather than the other way around. Letters enshrined in the presidential and Graham libraries reveal a preacher endlessly seeking official audience. As Truman said, years after his presidency, “Well, I hadn’t ought to say this, but he’s one of those counterfeits I was telling you about. He claims he’s a friend of all the presidents, but he was never a friend of mine when I was president.”
Of course, politicians have often brandished fear as well, and the twin streams of fear-based politics and fear-based religion couldn’t have been more confluent. Communist infiltrators, missile gaps and the domino effect each took their turn, as did the Evil Empire and, more recently, Saddam, Osama bin Laden and an amorphous threat of global terrorism. In light of the Biblical endorsement of rulers, Graham supported police repression of Vietnam war protesters and civil rights marchers, opposed Martin Luther King’s tactic of civil disobedience, supported South American despots, and publicly supported every war or intervention waged by the United States from Korea forward. Born on a prosperous dairy farm and educated at Wheaton College, Graham first gained national attention in 1949 when the publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst, searching for a spiritual icon to spread his anti-communist sentiments, discovered the young preacher holding forth at a Los Angeles tent meeting. Hearst wired his editors across the nation, “puff Graham,” and he was an instant sensation. Hearst next contacted his friend and fellow publisher Henry Luce. Their Wall Street ally, Bernard Baruch, arranged a meeting between Luce and Graham while the preacher was staying with the segregationist Governor Strom Thurmond in the official mansion in Columbia, S.Car. Luce concurred with Hearst about Graham’s marketability and Time and Life were enlisted in the job of selling the soap of salvation to the world. Time, alone, has run more than 600 stories about Graham. The man who would become known as “the minister to presidents” offered his first military advice in 1950. On June 25, North Korean troops invaded South Korea and Graham sent Truman a telegram. “MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS PRAYING GOD GIVE YOU WISDOM IN THIS CRISIS. STRONGLY URGE SHOWDOWN WITH COMMUNISM NOW. MORE CHRISTIANS IN SOUTHERN KOREA PER CAPITA THAN ANY PART OF WORLD. WE CANNOT LET THEM DOWN.” It was the first time Graham encouraged a president to go to war, and with characteristic hyperbole: Korea has never topped the list of Christian-leaning nations. Subsequently, Graham gave his blessing to every conflict under every president from Truman to the second Bush, and most of the presidents, pleased to enjoy public assurance of God’s approval, made him welcome in the White House. Graham excoriated Truman for firing General Douglas MacArthur and supported the general’s plan to invade China. He went so far as to urge Nixon to bomb dikes in Vietnam-- knowing that it would kill upward of a million civilians-- and he claimed to have sat on the sofa next to G.H.W. Bush as the bombs began falling in the first Gulf War (though Bush’s diary version of the evening somehow excludes Graham, as does a White House video of Bush during the attack). According to Bush’s account, in a phone call the preceding week, Graham quoted poetry that compared the President to a messiah destined to save the world, and in the next breath called Saddam the Antichrist. Bush wrote that Graham suggested it was his historical mission to destroy Saddam. Through the years, Graham’s politics earned him some strange bedfellows. He praised Senator Joseph McCarthy and supported his assault on Constitutional rights, then scolded the Senate for censuring McCarthy for his excesses. He befriended oil men and arms manufacturers. He defended Nixon after Watergate, right up to the disgraced president’s resignation, and faced public scorn when tapes were aired that exposed the foul-mouthed President as a schemer and plotter. Nixon’s chief of staff, Bob Haldeman, reported on Graham’s denigration of Jews in his posthumously published diary-- a claim Graham vehemently denied until released tapes undid him in 2002. Caught with his prejudicial pants down, Graham claimed ignorance of the hour-and-a-half long conversation in which he led the antisemite attack. As reported by the Associated Press on March 2, 2002:
“Although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made in an Oval Office conversation with President Nixon . . . some 30 years ago,” Graham said in a statement released by his Texas public relations firm. “They do not reflect my views, and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by the remarks.”“Although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made in an Oval Office conversation with President Nixon . . . some 30 years ago,” Graham said in a statement released by his Texas public relations firm. “They do not reflect my views, and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by the remarks.”
Whether or not the comments reflect Graham’s views at the time or thirty years later, it is his defense that bears much closer scrutiny. What were we to make of a preacher who insisted that his words didn’t reflect his beliefs? Were we to believe him then or later, on other matters? Graham was a political operative, reporting to Kennedy on purported communist insurgencies in Latin America, turning over lists of activist Christians to the Republican party, conferring regularly with J. Edgar Hoover and networking with the CIA in South America and Vietnam. He was even assigned by Nixon’s operatives to talk George Wallace out of a second run for the White House. To accomplish the latter, he phoned Wallace as he was coming out of an anesthetic stupor after one of his numerous post-assassination-attempt surgeries. While the long suffering gunshot victim asked the minister to pray for him, the minister asked him not to make a third-party bid for the presidency. “I won’t do anything to help McGovern,” Wallace replied. There are many who would argue that the good that Graham did outweighs whatever political intrigue he embraced, and even the several wars he enthusiastically endorsed. To the extent that bringing people to Christ is of benefit to them, an untestable hypothesis, he was successful with his calls to come forward. He accrued hundreds of millions of dollars which were used to extend his ministry and thereby bring more people to “be saved,” which is self-justifying but fails as evidence of goodness. If Christian beliefs about the hereafter prove correct, we will all presumably discover what good he accomplished, or what chance for salvation we missed, in the sweet by and by. In talking to one of his biographers, Graham recalled his mood during his fire and brimstone declamations, “I would feel as though I had a sword, a rapier, in my hand, and I would be slashing deeper and deeper into the consciences of the people before me, cutting away straight to their very souls.” In that regard, Graham’s largest and most lasting monument is a highway cut through Beaucatcher Mountain, blasted through a majestic land form that once bisected Asheville, N.Car. He helped convince recalcitrant landowners to permit the excavation and construction through the cut of the short stretch of Interstate highway subsequently named the Billy Graham Freeway. Downwind residents report that the weather has permanently shifted due to the gaping mountain maw and the future of the highway that transects the city continues to be one of the most divisive issues in that southern metropolis. “Straight to their very souls,” indeed. In every way, Graham was the spiritual father of today’s right-wing religious leaders who so inhabit the national conversation. If he cloaked his suasion in public neutrality it was the hallmark of an era in which such intrusion was deemed unseemly. If today’s practitioners are less abashed, it is in many ways reflective of the secure foundation Graham built within Republican and conservative circles. Graham endorsed and courted Eisenhower and compared a militaristic State of the Union speech to the Sermon on the Mount, fanned anti-Catholic flames in the Nixon-Kennedy contest, backed Johnson and then Nixon in Vietnam, lobbied for arms sales to Saudi Arabia during the Reagan years, conveyed foreign threats and entreaties for Clinton and lent his imprimateur to G.W. Bush as he declared war on terrorism from the pulpit of the National Cathedral. Billy Graham approved of warriors and war, weapons of mass destruction (in white, Christian hands) and covert operations. He publicly declaimed the righteousness of battle with enemies of American capitalism, abetted genocide in oil-rich Ecuador and surrounds and endorsed castration as punishment for rapists. A terrible swift sword for certain, and effective no doubt, but not much there in the way of turning the other cheek. Graham will be cordially remembered by those who found solace in his golden promises and happy homilies, but the worldly blowback from his ministry is playing out in Iraq and Afghanistan, Chechnya and Korea, the Phillipines and Colombia-- everywhere governments threaten human rights and pie in the sky is offered in lieu of daily bread. In the words of Graham’s ministerial and secular adversary, Dr. King, “I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.” Farewell Reverend Graham. Let justice roll.
