Bernie: Into The Fox's Den-- While Corrupted Rich Democrats Work On Their Stop Bernie Crusade

Jonathan Martin's headline in the New York Times this morning said it all: 'Stop Sanders' Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum. He starts with "a closed door gathering of about 100 wealthy liberal donors in San Francisco last month" freaking out about Bernie winning the nomination. These are people who have been served well by the status quo. They all want women to be allowed to have abortions and they support gays marrying each other. But beyond that, they're not liberals at all; they do not want anyone touching the economic fundamentals of the status quo, their status quo. "How, some Democrats are beginning to ask," reported Martin, "do they thwart a 70-something candidate from outside the party structure who is immune to intimidation or incentive and wields support from an unwavering base, without simply reinforcing his 'the establishment is out to get me' message-- the same grievance Mr. Trump used to great effect?"

Martin gets the crux of the story wrong though. He wrote that "From canapé-filled fund-raisers on the coasts to the cloakrooms of Washington, mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried that their effort to defeat President Trump in 2020 could be complicated by Mr. Sanders, in a political scenario all too reminiscent of how Mr. Trump himself seized the Republican nomination in 2016." He thinks it's about Trump. It isn't. To many of these wealthy establishment Democrats, Bernie is more of a threat than Trump is. After all, Trump may be an embarrassment... but he lowered their taxes. Bernie would raise them. For sure.

Hired political assassin-- once for the right, now for the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- David Brock, a vicious leader of the anti-progressive movement and a Bernie-hater, weighs in: "There’s a growing realization that Sanders could end up winning this thing, or certainly that he stays in so long that he damages the actual winner. He is chomping at the bit to organize the establishment into an overt anti-Bernie campaign immediately. Brock hissed that "the Bernie question comes up in every fund-raising meeting I do." Fellow plotters include rich party donors like Steven Rattner, Susan Swecker (chair of the Virginia Democratic Party) and former Clintonite operative.current Bloomberg factotum Howard Wolfson. This "discussion about Mr. Sanders," wrote Martin, "has to date been largely confined to private settings because-- like establishment Republicans in 2016-- Democrats are uneasy about elevating him or alienating his supporters."

Martin points out though that "to some veterans of the still-raw 2016 primary, a heavy-handed intervention may only embolden him and his fervent supporters. R.T. Rybak, the former Minneapolis mayor who was vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2016, complained bitterly about the party’s tilt toward Mrs. Clinton back then, and warned that it would backfire if his fellow mainstream Democrats 'start with the idea that you’re trying to stop somebody.' If the party fractures again, 'or if we even have anybody raising an eyebrow of I’m not happy about this, we’re going to lose and they’ll have this loss on their hands,' Mr. Rybak said of the anti-Sanders forces, pleading with them to not make him 'a martyr.'"

The matter of What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity has, for example, hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz. The gatherings have included scores from the moderate or center-left wing of the party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden.

“He did us a disservice in the last election,” said Mr. Schwartz, a longtime Clinton supporter who said he will support former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in this primary.

...“If he is consistently raising $6 million more than his next closest opponent, he’s going to have a massive financial advantage,” said Rufus Gifford, former President Barack Obama’s 2012 finance director, noting that Mr. Sanders will be able to blanket expensive and delegate-rich Super Tuesday states like California and Texas with ads during early voting there.

Mr. Gifford, who has gone public in recent days with his dismay over major Democratic fund-raisers remaining on the sidelines, said of Mr. Sanders, “I feel like everything we are doing is playing into his hands.”

But the peril of rallying the party’s elite donor class against a candidate whose entire public life has been organized around confronting concentrated wealth is self-evident: Mr. Sanders would gleefully seize on any Stop Bernie effort.

“You can see him reading the headlines now,” Mr. Brock mused: “‘Rich people don’t like me.’”

I ran this poll yesterday before Bernie did the Fox News town hall. 65% thought going on Fox and bringing their viewers the truth was a good idea. 35% thought it wasn't. The media and social media buzz after the event was about 99% favorable. Bernie knocked it out of the park.

Even his CAP-centered enemies-- already reeling from his polling success and the 10 years of taxes he had just released-- couldn't come up with anything negative to say. DC-based journalist Skip Kaltenheuser observed that "about half-way through, the FOX moderators started looking like deer caught in the headlights. I imagine the Democratic Party Grand Poobahs who watched had a similar look on their faces." By this morning, they were all weeping bitter tears over the Holly Otterbein piece at Politico, Sanders takes on Fox-- and emerges triumphant. "Bernie Sanders entered the Fox's den on Monday night," wrote Otterbein, "and he not only survived the hour-long encounter, but often dominated. Appearing at a Fox News-hosted town hall smack dab in the middle of Trump Country, the Democratic presidential front-runner played the part, swatting down tough questions from the hosts about health care, defense spending, and his newfound wealth. At one point, the Vermont senator even led the network’s audience in a call-and-response that found them cheering loudly for his policies." Part 1 of the town hall is up top and part 2 is below. You should watch them both. And if you like them, you can contribute to Bernie's campaign by clicking on the thermometer on the right.

Someone's frightened

In the days preceding the event, Sanders faced backlash from liberals who said he shouldn’t participate given the network's nativist bent and cheerleading for President Donald Trump. But when it was over, Sanders had received an hour of positive exposure on the highest-rated cable channel-- something none of his primary rivals have yet risked.

The town hall took place in a cultural center in the shadows of a former steel mill here, in a county in Pennsylvania that voted for Trump after twice supporting Barack Obama. But the room was packed with Sanders supporters, and the Vermont senator fed off the energy of the crowd.

Still, the image of an audience on Fox News rallying behind the democratic socialist and his left-wing platform gave Sanders the appearance of strong support in an area that was key to the president’s victory in 2016.

For the Sanders campaign, it was an ideal end to a four-day swing through the industrial Midwest that was meant to show that he's the presidential candidate best positioned to beat Trump. Significant numbers of Democratic primary voters are more concerned with a candidate's ability to win than his or her ideology, according to recent polls.

Some of the difficult questions asked by the hosts, Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, were about Sanders’ “Medicare for All” plan.

When asked how he would fund the program, Sanders didn't shy away from the fact that many Americans would pay more in taxes. But he insisted the “overwhelming majority” would end up spending less money overall because they would not pay for deductibles or other out-of-pocket costs. He also downplayed concerns that people would be kicked off their insurance, arguing that millions already lose their health insurance when they get fired from or quit their jobs.

His health care plan, he said, “gives you freedom of choice.”

One of the most surprising moments of the town hall occurred when Baier asked the members of the audience to raise their hands if they received health insurance through their employer. Most indicated they did. Then he asked how many would be willing to switch to Sanders‘ plan, and most people appeared to raise their hands again.

...When MacCallum said some would argue Sanders that supported felons‘ having the right to vote because it benefited him politically, she was booed by the crowd. “Oh, come on,“ he said. Asked about those who say that he is too old to be president, he shot back, “Well, follow me around the campaign trail.”

Sanders was also asked by an audience member how he would challenge the idea that “socialism is bad.”

He replied with familiar talking points: “Democratic socialism to me is creating a government and an economy and a society which works for all, rather than just the top 1 percent. It means ending the absurd inequalities that exist today.”

On the hot-button topic of abortion, Sanders‘ responses prompted an immediate rebuke from conservatives on social media. MacCallum asked him whether “a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy up until the moment of birth.” He replied: “I think that that happens very, very rarely, and I think this is being made into a political issue. So I think it’s rare, it’s being made into a political issue. But at the end of the day, I believe that the decision over abortion belongs to a woman and her physician, not the federal government.“

...As Sanders traveled to Rust Belt states that were essential to Trump’s victory this weekend, he called on the president to keep his vow to working-class Americans and ditch the new NAFTA agreement. If elected, Sanders also said he would deny government contracts to companies that outsource jobs to other countries, such as General Motors.

Sanders had a similar message throughout the Fox News town hall. He attacked Trump, arguing that he didn’t keep his campaign promise to be a different kind of Republican and avoid cutting programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Feisty and confident, Sanders ended the engagement by gently ribbing the hosts of the network liberals despise. “Thank you very much," he told Baier and MacCallum, "and I hope I wasn’t too hard on you.”

Sanders Takes the Campaign Against CAP to Eleven

From a Sanders fundraising letter sent after CAP's attack on him

by Thomas Neuburger

One of my biggest concerns about the 2016 Sanders campaign was that, at least at the beginning, it was too easily forced to apologize for attacks on supposed "allies of progressives" in the Democratic ecosystem — because "unity."

The prime example of that occurred when Sanders accused the Planned Parenthood Action Fund — not Planned Parenthood the health care organization, Planned Parenthood AF, the highly Clintonist political action committee, which had early-endorsed Clinton despite Sanders' excellent record on women's issues — of being "part of the establishment."

He was immediately accused by the rest of the establishment, falsely, of attacking Planned Parenthood clinics. And he backed down, unwisely in my view. (For more on that episode, read the first few paragraphs of this piece.)

Well, the highly Clintonist, highly corporate establishment is at it again, in the form of the corrupt Center for American Progress (CAP) and its online publication ThinkProgress. (For more on their corruption, see also here and here.) ThinkProgress published a video critical of Sanders, as Lee Fang (who also delves into their corruption) explains here:

The Center for American Progress, which sponsors ThinkProgress, is led by board president Tom Daschle, who is a registered lobbyist for Comcast CVS Health-Aetna, and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. TP used to criticize those companies, now they carry their water.

— Lee Fang (@lhfang) April 11, 2019

In response to that video Sanders sent CAP a letter, saying in part:

Center for American Progress leader Neera Tanden repeatedly calls for unity while simultaneously maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas. I worry that the corporate money CAP is receiving is inordinately and inappropriately influencing the role it is playing in the progressive movement. (emphasis mine)

Team Sanders then went a whole lot further than that in a public fundraising letter, parts of which are reproduced below. Note the expansion of the "corporate money" point from the CAP letter, and also the directness (emphasis mine throughout):

"We are under attack"

Sisters, Brothers, and Friends -

Just like that, our campaign is under attack from the corporate establishment.

This week, an organization that is the epitome of the political establishment — the Center for American Progress (CAP) — unleashed and promoted an online attack video against Bernie.

And behind the scenes on the day Bernie introduced his Medicare for All bill, they held a conference call with reporters attacking the bill.

That is the Center for American Progress’ real goal. Trying to stop Medicare for All and our progressive agenda.

CAP's leadership has been pretty upfront about their disdain for Bernie — and for all of us. They see our political revolution as a threat to their privilege and influence. ...

The Center for American Progress is an organization whose massive annual budget is bankrolled by billionaires and corporate executives that profit from finance, pharmaceutical companies, fossil fuels, and sending American jobs overseas.

Last year alone, they took funding from financial giants like Bank of America and Blackstone, whose CEO was chair of Trump's business council and is a leading Republican donor.

Before that, they cashed checks from companies like BlueCross Blue Shield, Pfizer, WalMart, and defense contractors like General Dynamics and BAE Systems.

They also took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel pumping United Arab Emirates while the country was bombing innocent civilians in Yemen – a war Bernie has led the fight to end.

The Center for American Progress has deep connections to the economic and political elites who have done so much damage to working families in every zip code. And what we must do today is send a message that we are prepared to fight back against those who are working day and night to defeat our movement....

In solidarity,

Team Bernie

That's powerful stuff, no-holds-barred truth-telling. Note the many bells it rings:

• "corporate establishment"
• "epitome of the political establishment"
• "real goal ... stop Medicare for All and our progressive agenda"
• "threat to their privilege and influence"
• "massive annual budget is bankrolled by billionaires"
• "deep connections to the economic and political elites who have done so much damage to working families"
• "working day and night to defeat our movement"

The letter also names a few of the companies and countries that bankroll CAP — Walmart, Bank of America, Blue Cross, Blackstone, the UAE. He could have listed a great many more. There are countless stories emerging from former ThinkProgress writers about CAP leadership squelching aggressive reporting because their reports were negatively affecting CAP fundraising. Read this twitter thread by former ThinkProgress reporter Zaid Jilani to see some of those. There are others as well.

Bernie Sanders is not backing down this time. Unlike 2016, this will be a battle with the enemy named out loud and its deeds detailed. Looks like the fight, the one our country has been avoiding for years, is finally on.
 

The Viciously Anti-Bernie Center For American Progress May Be Better Than The Heritage Foundation But It's No Friend Of Working Families

Podesta, Tanden, Clinton-- How We Got Stuck With Trump

If you've been reading DWT for more than a few days, you've probably noticed how pissed off I get when someone refers to a conservative Democrat as a "moderate." I get at least just as pissed off when someone uses the word "liberal" or "progressive" to describe someone or something that is notably neither liberal nor progressive. Sunday, Ken Vogel and Sydney Ember (a repeat offender) did exactly that in a NY Times piece about the Center for American Progress, Bernie Sanders Accuses Liberal Think Tank of Smearing Progressive Candidates. There may have been a time-- when dinosaurs walked the earth, or at least before people understood what a DINO is-- that the Center for American Progress (CAP) was considered "liberal." But that was well over a decade ago.

CAP is a garden variety, corporately-funded centrist-Democrat Inside-the-Beltway outfit. It was founded in 2003 by lobbyist and Clinton factotum John Podesta. Lobbyist Tom Daschle is the chairman of the board and Clinton operative Neera Tanden is the president. They take millions of dollars from corporate special interests-- Walmart, CitiGroup, Wells Fargo, Northrop Grumman, etc-- and push corporate special interest policies. CAP, for example, has rabidly opposed to single-payer healthcare while sucking up money from Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Eli Lilly, Health Care Service Corporation and the health insurance trade organization, America's Health Insurance Plans. CAP also carries water for the Saudis and Emeratis. Liberal? Not even close. Totally centrist, totally establishment, totally corporate, totally-money-obsessed (to the point of corruption), totally anti-progressive. They have been at the center of anti-Bernie poison inside the Democratic Party. And that brings us to the letter Bernie sent to their board last week:

Dear members of the Board of the Center for American Progress and CAP Action Fund:

I write to express my deep concern and disappointment with the destructive role that the Center for American Progress and its affiliated Action Fund arm are playing in the critical mission to defeat Donald Trump.

Last week, you published an article on ThinkProgress criticizing me for my appearance and for the income I earned from writing a book. Then, a day later, you published a video that dishonestly attacked me for hypocrisy in my effort to address income inequality in America-- a video that was excitedly discussed on many conservative websites.

Sadly, I’m not the only candidate in the 2020 field who has experienced personal attacks from your institution. My friend and colleague Elizabeth Warren was unfairly targeted by a November 2017 article on ThinkProgress that echoed Donald Trump’s bad faith claims that she was being a hypocrite about her ancestry. That attack that was linked on the Drudge Report and immediately immersed her into a rather unhelpful debate. Again in October 2018, you published an article stating that she was hurting Native American people.

That’s not all. In February of this year, an article on ThinkProgress attacked another friend and colleague of mine, Cory Booker, for moving in a progressive direction and joining with me on a prescription drug importation bill.

Center for American Progress leader Neera Tanden repeatedly calls for unity while simultaneously maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas. I worry that the corporate money CAP is receiving is inordinately and inappropriately influencing the role it is playing in the progressive movement.

I and other Democratic candidates are running campaigns based on principles and ideas and not engaging in mudslinging or personal attacks on each other. Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress is using its resources to smear Senator Booker, Senator Warren, and myself, among others. This is hardly the way to build unity, or to win the general election.

I will be informing my grassroots supporters of the foregoing concerns that I have about the role CAP is playing. Should your actions evolve in the coming months, I am happy to reconsider what kind of partnership we can have.

This counterproductive negative campaigning needs to stop. The Democratic primary must be a campaign of ideas, not of bad faith smears. Please help play a constructive role in the effort to defeat Donald Trump.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter, and I await your reply.

Sincerely,

Bernie Sanders

This is who CAP is, who they serve, how they operate

Podesta and Tanden have done enough damage to this country already. It's unlikely Trump would be in the White House now without them and people just like them playing their neoliberal games for their own profit. Watch who they back this cycle-- and run in the opposite direction as fast as you can. Bernie's campaign addressed his own followers in a very different kind of letter yesterday, pointing out that he "is under attack from the corporate establishment. This week, an organization that is the epitome of the political establishment-- the Center for American Progress (CAP)-- unleashed and promoted an online attack video against Bernie."

And behind the scenes on the day Bernie introduced his Medicare for All bill, they held a conference call with reporters attacking the bill.

That is the Center for American Progress’ real goal. Trying to stop Medicare for All and our progressive agenda.

CAP's leadership has been pretty upfront about their disdain for Bernie-- and for all of us. They see our political revolution as a threat to their privilege and influence.

...The Center for American Progress is an organization whose massive annual budget is bankrolled by billionaires and corporate executives that profit from finance, pharmaceutical companies, fossil fuels, and sending American jobs overseas.

Last year alone, they took funding from financial giants like Bank of America and Blackstone, whose CEO was chair of Trump's business council and is a leading Republican donor.

Before that, they cashed checks from companies like BlueCross Blue Shield, Pfizer, WalMart, and defense contractors like General Dynamics and BAE Systems.

They also took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel pumping United Arab Emirates while the country was bombing innocent civilians in Yemen-- a war Bernie has led the fight to end.

The Center for American Progress has deep connections to the economic and political elites who have done so much damage to working families in every zip code. And what we must do today is send a message that we are prepared to fight back against those who are working day and night to defeat our movement.

...The establishment is panicked because together we are building a campaign that is on its way to winning the Democratic nomination, beating Trump and transforming America.

Attacking Trump: A How To Guide

In his Washington Post column this afternoon, What’s the Democratic argument against Trump? Here’s one answer, Paul Waldman starts with a little joke that makes Trump sound like a vaguely "normal" president: "When he delivers the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, President Trump will reach out to his opponents in a spirit of unity, exploring areas where we can put aside our differences and solve problems together, as the American people so desperately want."

Chuckle, chuckle. Waldman made sure readers knew that he was kidding and wrote that "We all know that’s not what he’ll do. The SOTU may have a line or two about our common destiny or some such, but like all of Trump’s speeches and pretty much everything he says, it will almost certainly be intended to create and maintain division. With a new Democrat entering the 2020 presidential race every few days and the largest TV audience he’ll have all year, this address will be the unofficial start of Trump’s reelection campaign." So how will Democrats go after Trump in 2020? He wants us to think about what Dems want the public to believe about the worst occupant of the White House ever?. "Since Trump provides such a target-rich environment of character flaws, incompetence, mismanagement and a general air of crisis, there are multiple ways Democrats might choose to attack him, some of which would be more effective than others."

We’ve obtained an early look at some memos in which the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the 501(c)(4) arm of the most influential Democratic think tank, lays out the message it thinks will be most effective against Trump. They focus mainly on the idea that Trump broke the promises he made to the public during the 2016 campaign; those broken promises will form the foundation of the case they make against him. They’ve even got a website with shareable graphics.

I think this is an interesting way to frame the argument for a number of reasons. Here’s their synopsis:

The spotlight on these promises will synthesize what are already the American people’s worst perceptions of him, namely that he is dishonest; that contrary to his “populist” campaign rhetoric, he is primarily concerned with helping the wealthiest and big corporations rather than the middle- or working class; and that he is personally corrupt, running a corrupt government. [...]

Most notably on the economy, candidate Trump made grand unequivocal promises that he would raise taxes on the wealthy including himself; that no more factories would close in America; that every decision he made would be guided by raising wages; that every American would get health coverage; and that he would crack down on Wall Street. In every instance, he has pursued policies that would do exactly the opposite.

There’s ample evidence in Trump’s own statements for these claims, things like “Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us. We’re going to tax Wall Street,” which he said in January 2016. But the question isn’t whether you can make this case but whether this is what you’d choose to be the centerpiece of your argument against him.

The most important feature of this argument is that it isn't really aimed at liberals. Yes, liberals object to what Trump has done on the economy, but if you're saying Trump shouldn't be reelected because he broke his promises, your primary target is people who believed those promises when they were made. As a liberal I'm not mad that Trump broke his promises to me, because I never believed them in the first place. But saying "He broke his promises" allows a Trump voter to agree without feeling like they were foolish for voting for him in the first place.

That’s probably wise. As tempting as it is to say, “Anyone who believed what Trump said was an idiot,” you can’t win people over if you begin by insulting them. But it does assume that there are people who voted for Trump who will now be open to voting for a Democrat.

This line also declines to focus on Trump’s personality, apart from noting how often he has lied about the things he promised. Recall that in 2016, Hillary Clinton spent a great deal of time arguing that Trump’s character, temperament, and views rendered him unfit for the presidency, regularly assailing his ignorance, misogyny, racism, impulsiveness, and recklessness. Clinton was right about everything she said about him, but in hindsight it appears that she might have done better to focus less on his personality and more on a familiar argument that he would work to expand the wealth of the wealthy and the power of the powerful at the expense of the regular people he was claiming to represent.

That would have sounded much the same as arguments Democrats had made effectively against candidates like Mitt Romney, so perhaps it was less appealing because it didn’t seem to capture the unique threat Trump represented. But with Democratic proposals to raise taxes on the rich winning the support of huge majorities in polls, Democrats seem to believe that this is the most fruitful avenue to pursue.

Thus it is that CAP’s proposed attack line on Trump focuses heavily on his broken promises about the economy and health care, as detailed in a brief laying out those promises and how he fell well short of them.

It’s also important to remember that groups like CAP, not to mention the Democratic nominee, can focus on such broken promises, secure in the knowledge that they don’t need to make the case that Trump is a repellent human being who is unfit for the presidency. That’s apparent every day in news coverage of his actions and his own words, and with Trump’s approval ratings in the 30s, Democrats may not need to convince voters that he’s a bad guy.

In the past, Democrats have sometimes forgotten that in politics it’s necessary to simplify things. Donald Trump understands this better than anyone, which is why when he wants to attack you, he’ll find a single word to sum up his criticism (Crooked Hillary, Lyin' Ted, Liddle Marco). He has never suffered from any illusions about the voting public’s capacity for complex thinking.

I can’t say yet if “He broke his promises” is the single most effective argument to make against Trump, but it might not be a bad place to start.

Clinton Insider Neera Tanden: Sanders Did "Significant Damage"

Top Clinton insider Neera Tanden at a Google- and Elle-sponsored DC function (source)

by Gaius Publius

Short and bitter-sweet. The primary election is mainly over (but not quite; there's still a black swan or two hovering overhead). Clinton and her camp have vanquished the challenge from the left wing of her own voting base. We've listened to call after call for "party unity."

And yet we see this — Neera Tanden, a major Clinton insider, current head of the prominent (and Clintonist) thinktank Center for American Progress, someone in line for a significant job in a new Clinton administration, someone currently on Clinton's transition team, takes an unprovoked backhand swipe at Sanders and the left he represented during the primary, a punch in the gut for an offense long past.

The offense? Not surrendering to Clinton early enough.

Why?

Tanden, as quoted in The Hill:

Clinton confidante: Sanders did 'significant damage'

Longtime Hillary Clinton confidante Neera Tanden in a new podcast commends Bernie Sanders for the issues he raised during his campaign but notes his attacks on the Democratic presidential nominee were harmful.

“I actually have to say, I think he brought a lot of really important issues to the floor, but Senator Sanders was prosecuting a much tougher character attack” than Barack Obama did in 2008, Tanden said during Politico’s “Off Message” podcast.

“He did do significant damage to Hillary's negatives."

During the primary season, the Vermont senator often attacked the eventual Democratic nominee on the campaign trail — at points, questioning her judgment.

“I mean, he drove a lot of those negatives, and the truth of it, I mean, just to be candid — or honest about it, I think getting those kinds of attacks from another Democrat or another liberal or another progressive is much tougher for Hillary," said Tanden, who is the president of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress.

"If you look at her trust numbers the last six months of that primary ... those numbers took a much sharper dive and [were] hard to recover from.”

On the same story, Politico adds this:

[Tanden is] Clinton’s edgy public alter ego, whose stiletto-elbowed Twitter presence is said to closely echo the candidate’s own caustic private musings. And while Tanden respects Sanders and his staff (she helped negotiate the joint Clinton-Sanders college and health proposals and says “they were great”), she echoes Clinton’s own opinion that Sanders let the primary go on too long, too noisily and too nastily. [my emphasis]

“This primary was much tougher [than 2008]. There were many more open attacks on being 'bought and paid for' and all that stuff,” said Tanden, who didn’t like it, not one little bit.

Tanden's "stiletto-elbowed Twitter presence" — about that, more here. If you have a minute, do click. It makes a fascinating side story.

"Echoing the candidate's own caustic musings" — we'll have to take Politico's word for that, since there are no cited sources.

Clinton's opinion that "Sanders let the primary go on too long, too noisily and too nastily" — that's not hard to believe. Though it has a note of entitlement about it, I think — a note of complaining that your opponent should have quit earlier — and entitled is exactly what you don't want to be perceived as, no matter how far ahead of Donald Trump you are. So, on that score, bad move.

Which brings us back to Neera Tanden, and the question, why this slap at Sanders now? It apparently comes from nowhere, or from pique, a winner's swipe at a loser who's laying on the mat.

About that, two points. First, Tanden's comment adds credence to the perception of Clinton-camp entitlement that most Democrats think both Clinton and her team should avoid. Second, this incident has to give pause to that aforementioned Sanders-supporting base, that if this candidate and her new team can't resist unprovoked hippie-punching now, what will they do once they have real power?

Again, bad move, as I see it. This looks like an unforced error to me.

GP
 

Racist-Enabler Paul Ryan Is Back With More Re-Packaged Ayn Rand Austerity Claptrap

This week, the Wall Street banksters' very own House Financial Services Committee chairman, Jeb Hensarling-- after his meeting with Trump Tuesday morning at Trump Towers-- renewed his push to gut Dodd-Frank consumer protections, something Trump told Paul Ryan he would support. Hensarling and corrupt conservatives from both parties are eager to do away with the Volcker Rule-- which restricts a too-big-to-fail bank’s ability to make risky speculative investments-- destroy the effectiveness of the independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and exempt banks with certain capital levels from parts of the law. The overtly corrupt and crooked Hensarling has taken $7,015,460 from the finance sector he supposed to be overseeing ($921,415, this year alone... that's almost as much as the 3 biggest and most corrupted suck-ups to the banksters in Congress-- Paul Ryan- $1,942,309, Kevin McCarthy- $1,549,950, and Wall Street's errand boy himself, Patrick Murphy- $1,403,150)



Ryan is giving Hensarling media cover this week for his pro-bankster jihad, by launching his repackaged Ayn Rand-inspired plan to make America less equitable> Ryan is more concerned with gutting Medicare than dealing with his party's official lurch into the ugly bowels of racism, misogyny and xenophobia. He says he's concerned about Trump's off-the-cliff insanity but claims the only way to get his anti-worker program signed into law is by electing Trump, calling him "a willing partner" on WISN radio this week-- a doubly horrid proposition for normal Americans. Aside from repealing the Affordable Care Act, Ryan’s other plans include voucherizing Medicare in a way that significantly reduces health benefits to seniors, slashing health care for poor people, as well as further slashing what's left of the food stamps program, and, of course, giving large tax cuts to rich people. Greg Sargent no doubt remembers that Ryan's only service to poor people was in 2012 when he helped make sure Mitt Romney would lose the presidential election, did a piece for the Washington Post Tuesday, that pushes back on Ryan's foul plans with a more sensible proposal by the Democrats' middle of the road Center for American Progress. "The report," Sargent wrote, "identifies the core challenges we face: Income has stagnated among most American workers as the top one percent continues to capture an enormous chunk of the income gains in the aftermath of the recession. Making matters worse, the costs of middle class life, such as child care, higher education, and health care, have been rising faster than wages." This keeps poor working class families in a cycle of debt and unable to lift themselves into the middle class. Sargent boils this down to 5 relatively progressive agenda items he thinks Hillary will be able to accept.

• Measures to create jobs and improve opportunity and access to employment that include a national program to subsidize employment, building on state level programs that already have a track record.

• Increased investments in “human capital” that include federal matching funds to states in the quest for universal pre-K education; tax credits for child care; and expanded financial support for higher education (albeit not to the degree Sanders supports).

• Measures designed to help economically strained families, which include a tax credit for children, as well as ideas to “ease tensions between work and family life,” such as expanded family and medical leave and sick days.

• An expansion of the safety net, including expanding Social Security benefits and a push to expand Obamacare to the remaining millions of uninsured.

• Measures designed to boost wages, which include raising the minimum wage to $12 per hour (not $15, which all progressives back), expanding tax breaks for workers--the Earned Income Tax Credit-- to childless adults, expanded overtime protections (such as those recently announced by the Obama administration) and pay equity for women.

Jared Bernstein calls the modest, increment proposals, obviously tailor-made for a moderate like Hillary, "an extremely comprehensive collection of ideas to cut poverty and expand opportunity, all of which fit comfortably into the progressive agenda. If Paul Ryan’s agenda is block-granting Medicaid and food stamps to states-- which is another way of cutting their budgets and effectiveness-- that would be a recipe for higher poverty. Almost everything in the CAP report has a proven track record in terms of reducing poverty and/or expanding opportunity." Barbara Lee feels the CAP report "draws from the best of these proposals and stands in stark contrast to Speaker Ryan’s austerity cuts."

Let's help stop Paul Ryan, his inner circle and the austerity plans they're pushing-- plans that have already failed, with much pain, across Europe-- by electing more progressives to Congress:

Hillary Clinton, TPP, the World of Money & the Center for American Progress

Elizabeth Warren, speaking for the people. Who speaks for money? The Center for American Progress (image source; image artist; more images here)

by Gaius Publius

I'll put the bottom line first. There is no way that Hillary Clinton is not a strong supporter of TPP and Fast Track. Read on for why.

There has been a lot written lately, including here, about the Democratic Party split between progressives and "progressives" — the former of whom have most of the people on their side, and the latter of whom have most of the money. Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson and others are firmly in the progressive camp, what's being called the "Warren wing" of the party.

Most Democratic Party officials and electeds, however, are in the latter camp, which many call the "Wall Street wing," though huge swaths of American (and foreign) moneyed interests, not just those on Wall Street, are supporters and controllers of that wing. To take just one moneyed interest — Big Oil — consider that:

• Exxon is one of the largest owners of unmonetized methane (yet-to-be-fracked natural gas) in the country.
   
• "Left-wing" support groups and think tanks like EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) and NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) strongly support (pdf) the "temporary" transition to natural gas as a bridge fuel.
   
• By many reports both EDF and NRDC receive money in various ways, as well as advice, from the oil and gas industry and their advocates.
   
• NRDC in particular is said to have had a hand in Obama's new climate plan.
   
• And ... President Obama's big climate plan — his "Clean Power Plan" (a very methane industry–like phrase) — happens to preference methane over everything else in our arsenal, including just quitting carbon in a World War II–style conversion and being done with it.

The "Wall Street wing" of the Democratic Party is really the Money wing and represents Money wherever it is found. Though some dispute the claim, it seems to me the split between the Warren wing and the Money wing is huge, a chasm, and shows little sign of healing at the moment. It may heal later, artificially and for a time, around a Clinton candidacy, but that time isn't now.

Hillary Clinton and the Money Wing

I think it's fair to say, regardless of how you view Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, that her biggest hurdle on the Democratic side is her perceived connection to Big Money, and lots of it. Her family grew rich by cultivating people with money; her foundation grew fat by cultivating people (and nations) with money; and her donor list has historically included holders of big money, especially Wall Street holders (though Obama seems to have out-raised her on Wall Street in 2008).

She may be able to shed these concerns — there is much time left, too much in fact, until the Democratic primary elections. But she may not need to shed them; for example, the specter of "Republicans in the White House!" may be too much for even the most progressive of voters. We'll have to see how this plays out. Nevertheless, it's fair to say that the tag "friend of money" is one of the vulnerabilities Ms. Clinton may have to overcome.

Center for American Progress and the World of Big Money

One of the most important — and "centrist" (code for "corporate-friendly") — think tanks in the Democratic Party ecosystem is the Center for American Progress, or CAP. They do some good work, and their associated Web group, ThinkProgress, does excellent work. But when it comes time to put their "money" where Money's mouth is — for example, to support cuts to Social Security and Medicare — CAP is on the anti-progressive side, and reliably so.

CAP is strongly connected to the Clinton ecosystem as well as the party ecosystem. CAP was founded by John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff. He's now chair of the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign. The current president of CAP is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations, and also on the 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign. With $40 million in 2013 revenue, CAP and those associated with it stand at or near the center of the center of mainstream Democratic politics.

CAP is also extremely secretive about where its money comes from. Here's the always excellent Ken Silverstein, writing in The Nation in 2013 (my emphasis):

Nowadays, many Washington think tanks effectively serve as unregistered lobbyists for corporate donors, and companies strategically contribute to them just as they hire a PR or lobby shop or make campaign donations. And unlike lobbyists and elected officials, think tanks are not subject to financial disclosure requirements, so they reveal their donors only if they choose to. That makes it impossible for the public and lawmakers to know if a think tank is putting out an impartial study or one that’s been shaped by a donor’s political agenda. “If you’re a lobbyist, whatever you say is heavily discounted,” says Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and an expert on political ethics. “If a think tank is saying it, it obviously sounds a lot better. Maybe think tanks aren’t aware of how useful that makes them to private interests. On the other hand, maybe it’s part of their revenue model.”

And:

CAP has emerged as perhaps the most influential of all think tanks during the Obama era, and there’s been a rapidly revolving door between it and the administration. CAP is also among the most secretive of all think tanks concerning its donors. Most major think tanks prepare an annual report containing at least some financial and donor information and make it available on their websites. According to CAP spokeswoman Andrea Purse, the center doesn’t even publish one.

Purse told me that CAP “follows all financial disclosure requirements with regard to donors…. We don’t use corporate funds to pay for research or reports.” But she flatly refused to discuss specific donors or to provide an on-the-record explanation for why CAP won’t disclose them.

After growing rapidly in its first few years, tax records show, CAP’s total assets fell in 2006 for the first time, from $23.6 million to $20.4 million. Assets started growing again in 2007 when CAP founded the Business Alliance, a membership rewards program for corporate contributors, and then exploded when Obama was elected in 2008. According to its most recent nonprofit tax filing, CAP’s total assets now top $44 million, and its Action Fund treasury holds $6 million more.

A confidential CAP donor pitch I obtained describes the Business Alliance as “a channel for engagement with the corporate community” that provides “the opportunity to…collaborate on common interests.” It offers three membership levels, with the perks to top donors ($100,000 and up) including private meetings with CAP experts and executives, round-table discussions with “Hill and national leaders,” and briefings on CAP reports “relevant to your unique interests.”

Regardless of what you think of CAP and what it accomplishes, there's no question that CAP inhabits, is part of, the world of Big Money, just as Wall Street is part of that world, Ford Foundation is part of that world, and everything touched by the Kochs, such as PBS. Welcome to the One Percent and their interests.

CAP's Donor List

Since the Silverstein article came out, CAP released its donor list:

The liberal think tank Center for American Progress on Friday revealed that it’s funded by some of the country’s largest and most powerful corporations, trade associations and lobbying firms.

Major donors to the group and its affiliate social welfare nonprofit Center for American Progress Action Fund include major retailers, energy interests, health care companies and other corporate actors who spend millions on lobbying and influence peddling in the nation’s capital, according to a list posted on the center’s website.

The group — which is a fundraising powerhouse that takes in about $40 million a year — released its donor list as founder and chairman John Podesta heads into the Obama White House to serve as a senior adviser.

Those corporations and trade associations represent a cross section of corporate America and include Walmart, Goldman Sachs, Google, defense giant Northrop Grumman, T-Mobile, Toyota, Visa, GE, among others. CAP did not disclose the donation amounts.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP — a major player in the health care debate contributed to the group, as did Hollywood’s advocacy arm, the Motion Picture Association of America. Other corporate donors include Microsoft, PepsiCo, Samsung, CVS Caremark, Comcast NBCUniversal and many others.

The firm also has a number of major K Street lobbying firms on the corporate donor list including Akin Gump, the Glover Park Group, Livingston Group and the Downey McGrath Group. All represent dozens of corporate and nonprofit clients.

Do you think maybe CAP supports TPP? (Can it afford not to?)

CAP Strongly Supports TPP

From the CAP main website, a piece written in 2012:

Japan’s Inclusion Makes the Trans-Pacific Partnership a Big Opportunity

New Agreement Could Lead to Better Trade Between U.S. and Japan

... The prospect of Japan joining the TPP is indeed promising for the United States. U.S. goods trade with current TPP economies constitutes 5.3 percent of total U.S. goods trade. Japan’s inclusion would double this to 10.6 percent.

And while Japan is already a leading destination for U.S. exports, the United States has a $62.6 billion goods trade deficit with it. The TPP could help bring down that deficit by reducing trade barriers and opening the Japanese market up to more exports from the United States and other countries. ...

There's even a nice picture of a woman riding a bike past Sony corporate headquarters, with kind words for each.

How Does Hillary Clinton Not Support TPP and Fast Track?

The Center for American Progress sits squarely in the world of money, the world that Obama and his push for TPP seem determined to serve. Hillary Clinton sits squarely in both the world of money and the world of CAP infrastructure. How does she not support TPP? When asked about TPP, all she can say is this:

Clinton punts on trade

Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she will wait until negotiations are completed to take a position on the sweeping Asia-Pacific trade deal being negotiated by the Obama administration.

“So, I have said I want to judge the final agreement,” she said during a campaign stop in Cedar Falls, Iowa. “I have been for trade agreements. I have been against trade agreements.”

Pressure on Clinton to take a position on trade has been coming from both sides, with liberal groups urging her to stand against the trade deal.But doing so would be difficult for Clinton, who backed the deal as a member of President Obama's administration.

When asked about the TPP issue, campaign chief John Podesta, the same man mentioned above, former CAP chair, reportedly quipped, "Can you make it go away?"

This is not the behavior of a TPP opponent. Given all the information here (and there's plenty more elsewhere), there is no way Hillary Clinton is not a strong supporter of TPP and Fast Track.

Clinton's full answer on TPP. Note the mention of "national security" near the end. Obama's Pentagon chief has come out in favor of TPP on "security" grounds.

About those wishy-washy answers, though, I give her points for this — I do believe she's trying hard not to lie, a virtue in a candidate, and not a common one.

GP

Would you trust your delicate Constitution to a marauding band of thug-justices? (Do we have a choice?)

For the full version of the infographic, visit the Center for American Progress website.

by Ken

For people who continue to cling forlornly to what remains of the Constitution and American values, there aren't many words scarier than "The Supreme Court is headed back to town." We all remember the phrase "First Monday in October," which is when the new Court term always begins. Ahead of that date the gang will do some conferencing.

And in this term, a lot is hanging on the preliminaries. As ThinkProgress's Ian Millhiser and Nicole Flatow wrote in a much-circulated piece earlier this week, "What To Expect When The Supreme Court Returns To Work Next Week": "Much of the drama that will unfold in this coming term . . . is likely to come from cases the justices have yet to agree to hear." And they have a fair amount to say about six cases that the Court has already accepted as well as the more conspicuous possibilities among cases that could yet find their way onto the docket.


BEFORE WE GET TO THE FORECAST, LET'S RECALL
WHAT OUR SUPREME DUNDERHEADS DID LAST TIME

Two words: Hobby Lobby. The Court's Band of Thug-Justices ruled that these fine Christian folk who run the company are so danged God-lovin' and God-fearin' that it would just be a shame to make them follow the law as it applies to providing employees with contraception under the ACA, the kind of a shame that these good Christian thug-justices could stand idly by and allow to happen to such, you know, God-lovin' and God-fearin' folks.

(This is, by the way, a stunt that committed religionists of a non-Christian persuasion might want to think twice before attempting to emulate. The heartland of America is filled with a lot of gullible dimwits jest itchin' fer a fight, 'specially with damn furriners -- and a lot of them have guns and an itch to use 'em.)

Besides, the thug-justices ruled, the relevant government bureaus already have a plan in place designed for actual religious organizations that were exempted from ACA requirements whereby their employees will get their legally mandated medical coverage, just not paid for by their religious institutions. Since there's already a simple, efficient plan in place, it's hardly a big deal to apply the same plan to a few private employers who are just as God-lovin' and God-fearin' as, you know, those religious institutions.

Of course this turned out to be almost entirely lies. (Among the recommended texts: Ian's own "Obama Administration Calls The Supreme Court’s Bluff In Hobby Lobby" (Sept. 9) and "Religious Conservatives Finally Admit What They Really Want Out Of Hobby Lobby" (Sept. 22); and CAP Action War Room's "Hobby Lobby Grows: Hobby Lobby's Effects Are Being Felt Beyond Birth Control" (Sept. 23).)

• It turned out to be untrue that it would be just a tiny handful of similarly God-lovin' and God-fearin' folks in need of relief from this horrible religious oppression. In fact, to the surprise of no one except apparently some of the thug-justices, God-lovin' and God-fearin' folks have been crawling out of the woodwork all over the country sayin' how they shouldn't hafta follow no goddamn law if it gets in the way of their God-lovin' and God-fearin'.

• it turned out to be untrue that this tiny bit of judicial relief would apply just to this tiny goddamn matter of providing contraceptives under the ACA. In fact again, to the surprise of no one except apparently some of the thug-justices, the case is already being made that any goddamn law that's viewed as hurtful to their God-lovin' and God-fearin' by good God-lovin' and God-fearin' Christian folk should be shoved up the gummint's constitutional ass -- and judges are startin' to say so too.

• And, most delicious of all, it turned out to be untrue that the thug-justices would have the minimum level of honesty and decency to pay heed to their own lies. You remember those already-under-construction simple and efficient federal procedures that made it possible for the thug-justices to extend relief for the Hobby Lobby God-lovers and God-fearers and maybe a couple of others, well, no sooner had the thug-justices pronounced their verdict than they turned right around and, three days later, faced with other God-lovers and God-fearers saying those stinin' procedures, whatever they are, aren't no damn good no how, and the thug-justices said, you're right, and thank God for such God-lovin' and God-fearin' folks like you. Fuck those procedures! As I put it at the time, "The Supreme Court opens a drive-through window for right-wing zealots with (right-wing Christian) religious objections to the law."


RETURNING TO IAN AND NICOLE'S
FIRST MONDAY FEARLESS FORECAST

As noted, the authors look at six cases the justices have already agreed to hear, listing them according to the legal issues likely to be at stake. I'm using their categorizations to head my paraphrases of the cases.

"Pregnancy Discrimination"

Peggy Young's complaint involves the refusal of her employer, UPS, to put her on "light duty" while she was pregnant -- lifting cartons no more than 20 pounds, rather than up to 70 pounds, as the job normally called for. Rather amazingly, UPS got a federal appeals court to agree that doing so would put the company in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which of course was enacted to protect women against being unreasonably discriminated against.

"Despite all of the support and very little public opposition for enforcing pregnancy discrimination laws," say Ian and Nicole (links onsite),

the five justices on the Roberts Court most likely to vote against Young are known for having what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg referred to as a “blind spot” when it comes to women. In 2007, these five men rejected Lilly Ledbetter’s fair pay lawsuit, in a decision later overturned by an act of Congress. In 2011, they turned back the largest-ever class of women alleging gender discrimination by Wal-Mart. And in 2013, that same voting bloc held that many corporations get to decide when their female employees should have access to contraception. Commenting on this blind spot, Ginsburg said in an interview recently, “[T]he justices continue to think and change so I am ever hopeful that if the court has a blind spot today, its ey"es will be open tomorrow.”

"Racial Gerrymandering"

This is the case of the Alabama congressional districting plan that pretended to be following the letter of the Voting Rights Act by seeking to retain or even increase black representation -- by the now-popular Republican redistricting trick of packing as many "them" voters as possible into the fewest districts possible. In fact they assured that no black candidate could compete anywhere except the ghetto districts.

Ironically for the Alabama racists, the Roberts Court hates the Voting Rights Act and has been whittling away at it. As Ian and Nicole note: "The thrust of the Court’s recent affirmative action cases has been that “racial categories or classifications” are subject to the most skeptical level of constitutional scrutiny. If the Court treats Alabama’s racially conscious redistricting process with similar skepticism, it is difficult to see how it survives."

"When What You Say On Facebook Lands You In Jail"

What constitutes a legally definable "true threat"? When Anthony Elonis's wife left him, taking their children with him, he wrote on Facebook:

There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts. Hurry up and die, bitch, so I can bust this nut all over your corpse from atop your shallow grave. I used to be a nice guy but then you became a slut. Guess it’s not your fault you liked your daddy raped you. So hurry up and die, bitch, so I can forgive you.

Even Mr. Elonis seemed to grasp that this might be problematic if taken literally, and claimed that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. It's like rap lyrics, he says. Which has opened a giant can of worms, with the little pretties slithering in wildly various patterns. Just think what would happen, various purported defenders of the First Amendment are saying, if we were to try to apply an "objective standard" to everything people say in public. Ian and Nicole note, "No domestic violence or other groups have weighed in to defend the objective standard."

This is a difficult and perplexing case, but if anybody can make it more difficult and perplexing, it's our Supremes.

"Religious Liberty in Prison"

"There's no question," say Ian and Nicole, that Arkansas inmate Abdul Maalik Muhammad "is a very dangerous man," but can his "history of violent behavior" be grounds for "strip[ping] him of his right to practice his relious faith"? Arkansas authorities won't even let him grow a half-inch beard, arguging that he could hide a razor blade in it, or that it could conceal a facial bulge that might otherwise suggest the presence of contraband in his mouth.

"Israel and Palestine"

The plaintiff is trying to force the State Dept. to follow a portion of a 2002 law that says U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem can have Israel listed as birthplace on their passports, even though "Every president since Harry Truman, the president who was in office when the State of Israel was formed, has maintained a policy of neutrality over the question of whether the city of Jerusalem is part of Israel — or, indeed, whether it is part of any other nation." The DC Circuit Court of Appeals bought the position argued by both the Bush and Obama administrations that the law is unconstitutional, since it would infringe on the president's foreign-policy powers. The question, say Ian and Nicole, "is whether Congress can, in effect, trump the president's judgment on a matter of foreign policy such as this one, or whether the executive branch's authority in this area is truly exclusive."

"When Cops Stop You By Mistake"

Ian and Nicole take note of the well-established legal principle that "when someone violates the law, it doesn't matter whether or not they knew what the law said" -- if the case against them can be proved, they're guilty. But what about a law-enforcement officer who fucks up on the law?

Nicholas Heien was pulled over on a North Carolina interstate for having a broken tail light. But it turns out that one broken tail light is not a violation of North Carolina law so long as one of the two lights are working. Nonetheless, the cops used that purported violation as a reason for pulling Heien over, and then found cocaine once they searched his car.

But if the stop was illegal, says the plaintiff, isn't the search as well? But the law is ambiguous, and the North Carolina Supreme Court by a 4-3 vote backed up the cop. "The ruling gives the justices an opportunity," say Ian and Nicole, "to re-examine the leeway of officers to make traffic stops, at a time when stops continue to fall disproportionately on African Americans and other minorities." What's more, they say, "Underlying this case is a larger question: Will justices draw the line?"


WHICH STILL LEAVES ALL THOSE CASES
THE COURT CAN STILL AGREE TO HEAR

Ian and Nicole list three "high-profile issues that could come before the justices in the coming months":

• Will the justices "agree with nearly every single federal judge who has considered the issue that the Constitution forbids marriage discrimination against same-sex couples"?

• They think it "fairly likely that the Court will need to clarify just how far its recent Hobby Lobby decision cuts into the ability of workers to obtain birth control coverage.

• "There is also an unusually high chance that the justices could take a major abortion case this term," and they sketch the kinds of cases that could be available to the Court if it chooses to take them on.

There's also '"a small-but-not-zero chance that the justices could take a lawsuit seeking to gut the Affordable Care Act by cutting off subsidies to millions of Americans who currently enjoy subsidized health insurance under the law." You'll recall, though, that the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals withdrew the ruling by two far-right judges on a three-judge panel that accepted the right-wing talking point here. (See my September 4 post "The full DC Circuit Court of Appeals pulls back from the brink of health-care loony-tune-itude.") It would be a huge stretch for the Court to take this case on, but the Court needs to take a case is four votes for doing so.

#