Tale Of 3 Purities... Plus Comrade Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III

Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson-- feh!

Three purity-related positions of Democratic establishment’s supporters:

• Loud labelling of Lefties for "purity"
• Louder and very purist labelling of Israeli policies’ critics as "anti-Semitic" and "dis-qualifying"
• Much less-loud hostility towards critics of donor cash to party, and party cash to consultants.

Lefties are justifiably annoyed by the (1) vs. (2) contrast, but the (2) vs. (3) contrast is very revealing.

What else do we know?

The cash flow, which is dependent on (3), is fundamental to most participants’ careers and status. In contrast, coddling of ever-more belligerent Israeli government policies flies in the face of these data points:

• A majority of Jewish-Americans (although not of Jewish-American big donors) disagree with Israel’s more-extreme policies, although a majority of that majority is cautious in publicizing much of their disagreements.
• Much of the establishment is descended from families who, until well after the European Jewish Holocaust, restricted Jews’ entry to top universities and career opportunities, and totally excluded them from social clubs, etc.

These contradictions are clarified by the recent visibility of Israeli-American mega-donor Haim Saban’s denunciations of Bernie Sanders-supporting DNC chair candidate Keith Ellison as “anti-Semitic”, etc.:

• Saban is reportedly the single biggest donor, to the Dem Party and, separately, to the Clintons.
• Saban fully shares Republican sugar-daddy Sheldon Adelson’s purity against criticism of Israeli policies (Quote: "no daylight between us on Israel")

What does this tell us?

Purist bashing of Lefties for criticism of Israel, serves:

• not only the (universally recognized) purpose of maintaining cash flows from Saban and other Jewish-American big donors,
• but also as camouflage for the more fundamental goal of purist bashing of Lefties for criticism of all donors’ (whether Jewish, Christian, Saudi Fundamentalist, Russian Orthodox, Chinese Confucianist, etc.) cash to party, and party cash to consultants.

Data supporting the above:

• Bashing Lefties for "anti-Semitism" has a proven track record of political (if not electoral) success. This contrasts sharply with Hillary’s (lack of) electoral success since saying, in 2008 debate with Obama: "Lobbyists are people too!"
• Denouncing purity against "lobbyists" was a classic "gaffe" (i.e.: exposing true beliefs), which most of establishment is smart enough not to repeat. Only “big donors” are more reviled, while "consultants" are catching up as people begin to recognize that they are largely also lobbyists (if sometimes only for themselves).

What could possibly go wrong from using ostensible protection of Jews as a weapon to shut down criticism of donor cash to party and party cash to consultants?

It’s not as though non-Jews, especially those of low-income and/or low-education, are receptive to arguments that "Jews control everything!" …right?

Meanwhile, forget about recusal, will Comrade Jeff Sessions resign as Attorney General after lying under oath to the Senate about meetings with Russians while he was working for the Trump campaign? (Lying to Congress is perjury, which is illegal... even for an Attorney General.) Late this evening, the Washington Post reported that "Justice Department officials" revealed that Sessions spoke twice with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while he was part of the Trump campaign.

At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

...In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”

I guess this means the Republicans are going to find it a lot harder to keep cock-blocking an independent special prosecutor.

Why Targeting Corporate Democrats in the Age of Trump Is a Good Thing (for Democrats)

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer. Will he lead a loyal opposition to Trump or a disloyal one? How many Democrats will collaborate in the Age of Trump?

by Gaius Publius

If Democrats do not succeed at being seen as the nation's rescuer, someone else will. And that will definitely not be good ... for Democrats.

Inside the DC Beltway the following is becoming a "what everyone knows to be true" kind of statement. From The Hill (emphasis added):

Dem blame game rages over Clinton loss

Almost a month after Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump, recriminations are still flying among liberals and Democrats.

At least one prominent Clinton loyalist has turned his fire on Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), arguing that the left-winger’s challenge wounded the former secretary of State ahead of her general election campaign.

Sanders partisans, meanwhile, say that he would have been a better candidate than Clinton to win over an electorate hungry for change.

Both sides express concern that re-litigating the primary battle could be a distraction, wasting energy that would be better spent resisting President-elect Trump.

But even if all sides agree in theory on the need to focus on Trump, not everyone is ready to leave the primary in the past. [...]

In what casts itself as a news piece (and largely is), one "given" stands out. That given: "Both sides express concern that re-litigating the primary battle could be a distraction, wasting energy that would be better spent resisting President-elect Trump."

First, that's not a true statement, or if it is true, it's true only if the group covered by "both sides" includes just those connected to the benefits side of the Democratic Party ecosystem; the people with a vested interests (career; income) in not shaking things up too much, the winners no matter which party is in office.

Second, even though the statement is not true, its opposite — that some people argue strongly for a shake-up within the Party — is not presented. That is, the author's statement is presented benignly as part of the background, part of the "what everyone agrees on" or "knows to be true," for the rest of the news the piece covers — that people within the Party infrastructure are still fighting about who's at fault for Clinton's loss.

The statement, in other words, has a propagandistic goal; it's meant to prevent something from happening.

Draining the Other Swamp

Let's look at the other side of this "given," a side where people are saying that re-litigating the primary isn't a distraction, but part of what has to happen, and a side where that's a good thing.

The fact that people are litigating this battle is obvious, especially if one looks at Sanders supporters and partisans, instead of simply interviewing named Beltway insiders and a "Democratic strategist who requested anonymity." There are plenty of people on the left who want to drain the Democratic swamp too, if you bother to look for them.

Instead of just finding those voices, however, a task easily done, I want to look instead at the benefits of Sanders supporters and progressives pursuing such a strategy. The following is from a nicely argued piece in Truthout by Mark Engler. He starts with the obvious question: Is it really true that attacking corporate Democrats now — his example is the recent sit-in at Chuck Schumer's Senate office — is the wrong thing to do? Engler adds, "After all, isn't that attacking the wrong side?"

Why Targeting Corporate Democrats Is Part of the Fight Against Trump

On November 14, six days after the election of Donald Trump, some 40 young people walked into the office of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, calling on the senior lawmaker to step aside in his bid to be Senate minority leader. Carrying a banner that read "Wall St. Democrats Failed Us," they argued that Schumer, who has received more than $3 million in campaign contributions from the securities and investment industry in the last five years, was exactly the wrong figure to lead the opposition to Donald Trump. When the senator refused to meet with them, the protesters sat on the floor to barricade the office, filling the halls of the Hart Office Building with protest songs. In the end, 17 were arrested.

Asked about the purpose of the protest, organizer Yong Jung Cho stated, "The establishment Democrats have failed the American people. The establishment Democrats failed to stop Donald Trump." Another leader, Waleed Shahid, added that the group, #AllOfUs, would continue to target Democratic senators "who don't do anything they can to filibuster Trump's legislation that promotes his hatred or his greed."

At a time when so many people are furious at Donald Trump and terrified of his agenda, some will ask why these activists are targeting leading Democrats. After all, isn't that attacking the wrong side? [emphasis added]

It's a fair question and deserves an answer. Two related questions that should also be considered are these: Can this strategy produce a good result for progressives? Can this strategy produce a good result for Democrats? Let's look at each.

A Lesson from the Iraq War Protests

Engler begins his defense of this strategy in an unlikely place: "A look at the history of social movements under hostile governments provides a counterintuitive answer."

Consider the Iraq War protests of 2002-2003. These protests, which produced million-person rallies in cities around the world, are largely considered today to be failures, and even at the time were viewed by many to be lost causes. After all, the war went on as scheduled despite the marches, and the Bush administration felt in no way constrained by them.

Yet these protests had an effect — on the Democratic side. It made support for the Iraq War toxic for Party insiders, an effect that would prove quite powerful later on, affecting Clinton in 2008, for example, and also Clinton in 2016 when viewed in the context of her support for war in Libya.

Engler (emphasis added):

[A]rguably the most profound effect of the anti-war movement was not felt inside the Republican White House, but instead inside the Democratic Party. This dynamic is noteworthy for anti-Trump protesters. The movement succeeded in turning the party's base against Democrats who had supported Bush's invasion, and it made strong anti-war stances into the pragmatic position for politicians concerned about their political futures.

Before it commenced, a large number of Democratic officials were fully complicit in facilitating the Iraq War. In the fall of 2002, a majority of Democratic Senators -- 29 out of 50 -- joined the Republicans in voting to empower Bush to launch an invasion. Mainstream Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden likely believed that a "no" vote would expose them to criticism of being unpatriotic or soft in the "war on terror," and that an anti-war stance would come back to haunt their future political prospects.

Grassroots organizing played a vital role in turning this reasoning into a huge miscalculation -- making opposition to Bush the safe bet for Democrats and ensuring that centrists such as Clinton would grow to regret their Iraq War votes.

That dynamic then — that the massive anti-war protests made it imperative that Democrats who wanted a future in the Party and the nation's governance moving forward not be complicit with Bush — is exactly the dynamic that's coming into play now. Politicians and others in the Democratic ecosystem, if they value a future in the post-2017 Democratic Party, should be very careful to not be complicit with Trump.

And that only happens if the Democratic Party base and strongly progressive activists hold them noticeably and painfully accountable now.

Defeating Trump Requires Draining Both Swamps...

...because both swamps are fed from the same sewer, the flow of money from the top .01 percent. Engler again:

At a time when Donald Trump has risen to the presidency by railing against the Washington establishment and upending the traditional rules of politics, the Democratic Party's propensity for compromise and triangulation only plays into his hands. The only hope for unseating Trump and minimizing the damage of his agenda will be to fight his racist right-wing populism with a progressive vision. ...

In the short run, this will require pressuring fickle and opportunist politicians to stubbornly oppose and filibuster White House extremism, even at the risk of being labeled obstructionist by critics. In the longer term, it will involve creating an effective opposition in the Democratic Party to ensure that Trump's next opponent will not be another establishment candidate, deeply compromised by ties to corporate America.

Note that this is not an angry vision or a reactionist one — a vision reacting to Sanders' loss out of pique or sting. It's a vision that says the only hope of defeating what's being called "Trumpism" (more on that term later) is to defeat all that it stands for — not just racism, nativism, anti-Islam-ism; but also the "rule by the rich"-ism that feeds the both parties' version of the Washington insider swamp.

Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson

On that, a simple comparison. Is the anti-Islamist racism of powerful  Democratic Party donor Haim Saban any different than the anti-Islamist racism of powerful Republican Party donor Sheldon Adelson? Don't take the question as a theoretical one. Saban is using his sledgehammer influence with the corporate Democratic Party today to make sure that the next DNC Chair — a critical position going forward if used right — is not held by a Sanders-supporting Muslim.

And he's using anti-Muslim smears to do it. The Intercept:

This smear campaign against Ellison received a major boost Friday night when the single largest funder of both the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, said at the Brookings Institution, a part of which he funds: “If you go back to his positions, his papers, his speeches, the way he has voted, he is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual.” Saban added: “Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party.”

That's what "throwing your weight around" looks like. About Saban and Adelson:

Last year, he briefly teamed up with GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson to sponsor an effort to counter university boycotts and divestment from Israel’s occupation. “When it comes to Israel, we are absolutely on the same page,” [Saban] said of Adelson. “When it comes to this, there is no light between us at all.”

Make no mistake; this kind support for Israel — using U.S. power to put a nation of seven million people, mostly of one religion, in absolute charge of a region of 350 million, mostly of another religion — is a blueprint for disaster, and yes, deep deep racism.

Rescuing the Nation from Trump

But let's set the battle for the DNC chair aside for a moment. This kind of fight, if it replicates itself throughout the Party, and especially if it engages the "base" to the extent that the base was engaged during the run-up to Bush's Iraq War, is exactly what the Democratic Party needs to succeed ... not just as a party, but as a rescuer in the Age of Trump.

Because if Democrats do not succeed at being seen as the nation's rescuer, someone else will. And that will definitely not be good ... for Democrats. Those who care about the Democratic Party might want to care about that.

GP
 

Reflections on an Election Year When It Finally Hit the Fan

Part of Last Conversation Piece by Juan Munoz, by the Hirshhorn Museum. Its conspiratorial feel, with panicked outsiders, seems apt for Washington.

- by Skip Kaltenheuser

Frustrations on the coverage of the Democratic primaries have been slow-cooking quite awhile. Not just with the networks, I’m also looking at you, National Public Radio. Does NPR have a clue as to how badly it's damaged its brand from reporters and commentators chirping regurgitations of Hillary talking points from the outset? For that matter do the NY Times and the Washington Post? They’ve sounded so long like self-appointed gatekeepers, queen-makers, charges of media malpractice now abound. Now brace for articles, already appearing, on how Bernie blew it, too little too late. Never mind media putting him in a box and for so long paying scant attention beyond socialist snowball in hell status.

We can take solace that the public’s collective tin ear to media fixes is well on its way to repair, but that doesn’t cure the frustration. I listened to NPR’s Scott Simon Saturday, interviewing (lecturing) RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, over her group’s support of Bernie Sanders.

Ms. DeMoro acquitted herself well, plowing past Simon’s condescending entreaties to party unity, to getting the inevitability of math, to what’s really practical for health care in the political system, and to every other point he could squeeze in to call the game before the clock runs out. In his mindset there's only one game in town. Never mind pushing the party where it needs to go, never mind concern over game-changers that might wait in the wings. But I assure you in Washington there’s ample trepidation over what might next waltz out of the wings, and on its impact on voter turnout for down-ballot races.

Simon’s comments typify the drumbeat to make Bernie the fall guy for Hilary’s troubles. Apparently it’s now against the law to point out that occasionally the empress strolls buck-naked. And the commentariat now infuses Bernie with mystical powers to demand his supporters rise up for Hillary. If not, Bernie’s fault Hillary loses.

I don’t recall that loud a media pile-on when Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter, didn’t hear it as a major mutter when walking about the convention floor of the ’80 Democratic convention in NYC. Sure, it didn’t turn out so well, perhaps someone might have had a Dutch uncle talk with Ted early on. But Jimmy was a real incumbent, not the illusion of one.

Democrats are trying hard to find the soul of their party, and many may drift if they don’t. Independents are already the largest identification out there. More people get that with the skyrocketing wealth gap, Hillary’s specialty-- incremental change-- only locks in a status quo that speeds that gap.

Here’s a thought. If you want Bernie’s supporters to come around for Hillary, quit trying to stifle their voice at every opportunity, quit telling them from the outset their aspirations are hopeless, their efforts pointless, that they’re naive as to what’s possible, that if we end up in Trumpville it’s their fault for not folding early.

By the way, who told Chuck Todd of Meet the Press to play that corny triumph music when he breathlessly shows the latest transient polls? I keep waiting for Rocky to come out punching, demanding Todd change the tune. Todd landed the perfect theme music to go with Calvin Trillin’s description of Sunday talk shows, the Sabbath Gasbags.

So, plenty of resentment leftover from the death of a thousand slice-and-dice talking points directed at Bernie by Hillary’s minions. They’re well-placed in the media echo-chamber, including pundits financially tied to Hillary’s campaign and to super-pacs supporting her.

Most critiques boiled down to “single issue candidate,” “how does he pay for it?,” and “the Republican Congress will pour molasses on him.”

They’ll pour molasses on Hillary, too, as they do on President Obama. But if Bernie actually won, a number of seats would likely change in Congress, despite the gerrymandered districts that give the Republicans the House despite their losing the collective popular vote. We dream of a corrective algorithm that fairly redraws districts based on the census, letting the chips fall where they may. But that dream requires courageous state legislators. In any case, if Bernie triumphs, a sea-change cometh. Regardless, odds of Republicans losing the US Senate are decent, at least until the following midterm elections. Voter turnout takes the prize.

How does Bernie pay for it? C’mon. We’re way beyond flirting with the Roaring Twenties wealth gap. Adjustments are in order. That’s how to pay for needed infrastructure projcts, public college tuition, further improving health care and other investments in our future. According to the Institute for Policy Studies, the twenty (!!!) richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom half of all Americans-- the bottom 152 million in 57 million households. The wealthiest tenth of one percent owns more than a fifth of US household wealth, triple the percentage that rarified crowd owned in the 1970’s. Put differently, that top one-thousandth of Americans owns about what the bottom 90 percent of Americans own together.

An article in Scientific American notes that contrary to what most Americans think, America is the most unequal of Western nations, with far less social mobility than Canada and Europe. The Walton family is richer than 42% of American families combined. The bottom 40% of Americans have three tenths of one percent of US wealth. Not a misprint. Three tenths. Of one percent.

Many believe this disparity is greatly understated, that a tremendous amount of top tier wealth is not accounted for, that it’s hidden in off-shore holdings or shell companies, undervalued, etc…

Peel off some of this distortion, and reorient priorities, shucking waste like the F-35 fighter. We can find some money for Bernie. He might have to modify some plans as he goes along, everyone must, but there’s money.

Meanwhile, in the last fifty years the CEO/worker pay ratio has gone from 20-to-1 to 354-to-1. Maybe some CEO’s could take a haircut and put that money into apprenticeship programs.

Bernie’s a single issue candidate? Bull. The rigging of our country by our campaign finance system, flaming democracy long before the Citizens United accelerant was poured on, is far and away the biggest issue. Because it affects every other issue. It distorts every market, every decision on priorities. And it fertilizes a mindset attracting public servant “temps” aiming to flee Congress and government for big money in lobbying and legal jobs as soon as they’ve staked claim on an influence niche.

Here’s a column from the last election considering what the well-heeled want as they practice the low art of the thinly-disguised bribe. Nothing’s changed.

Side effects of this rigging even extend into state courts, where the lion’s share of court decisions affecting our lives take place, in states that have some aspect of judicial elections-- a majority of states. The result of the election money grab is that decisions are increasingly tilting against individuals in favor of corporations and their lawyers. You don’t think that widens the wealth gap? Also impacted are issues ranging from environmental regulation enforcement to drawing legislative districts. Here’s a column on equal justice slipping away.

Fundraising is big business in Washington, a vested interest in many quarters including media advertising. It takes on a life of its own as much as the military-industrial complex. Indeed, there’s ample crossover to that complex.

In 2016, the cost of the presidential election alone is expected to exceed $5 billion, doubling that of 2012. The cost of Federal campaigns together may reach $9 billion. That $27 dollar average contribution for Sanders is remarkable for the dent it’s made. But the big money and the dark money aren’t going away, any more than are the politicians raffling off their favors with a quiet wink.

If you believe, as I do, that the biggest threat to this country’s stability is the rapidly growing political clout of the finance sector, then steps must be taken to fracture that political power. Here’s a bit on finance sector influence, also written the last presidential campaign cycle. Again, nothing’s changed except it’s worse.

If you’d permit another digression, I interviewed Ralph Nader in 1999, for Bank Director magazine. Consider how prescient Nader was as to where the unshackled finance sector was taking us. Here’s the text.

When Hillary was First Lady, I wrote admiringly of her after watching her in the basement of a row house in the Adams-Morgan neighborhood of Washington, DC. She gave awards and a thoughtful talk to excited microfinance entrepreneurs. They’d been brought in for an international microcredit conference, and Hillary’s support was touching. Someone who gets it, I thought, who knows what reasonable access to capital means to the underprivileged.

But Hillary also gets what access to policy levers means to the finance sector, and what that means to candidates. The Clintons have always gotten that.

In one 16 month period ending last May, the Clintons earned 25 million dollars for 100 speeches, half of them by Hillary, according to FEC filings.

Why would Goldman Sachs or anyone pay Hillary five thousand or more beans per minute for speaking to them? Nothing new or insightful a politician can say is worth that amount of money, nothing riveting and novel in subsequent speeches. That kind of money is paid for only a few reasons, primarily thanking someone for past actions and influencing someone’s future actions. Maybe greasing revolving doors between the finance sector and key government positions. There’s limited value to bragging rights on hearing what everyone knows is a kowtow speech run once more through a speechwriter’s grinder, other than showing off the implicit influence and largess of paymasters that others might covet.

Never mind the political tone-deafness of giving speeches for such largess to an industry Bill Clinton gave the country’s car keys to, and which ran into a tree.

I wish Hillary would share those emerald-embedded platinum words. I doubt there’s a Romney-esque 47% sinker there, but I’ll bet there’s plenty to make Hillary’s recent Wall Street comments sound like lip service is all that’s moved toward Bernie. According to Politico, Hillary’s comments in one speech to Goldman Sachs included calling “banker-bashing” “foolish” as she defused Wall Streets role in the economic meltdown, saying “we all got into this mess together.”

Come to think of it, they did all get into this mess together. Rubinomics. Bill Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin was kindly donated by Goldman Sachs. After deregulating the finance industry, Rubin returned to Wall Street, earning $126 million from Citigroup in the decade that included the financial meltdown and the taxpayer bailout of Citigroup. Thank you. Thank you very much.

We’ll always be indebted to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone for knifing through public relations gauze with his graphic imagery of Goldman Sachs as a vampire squid.

Taibbi is among those who’ve written on how Goldman Sachs successfully uses the revolving door to salt the upper tiers of government(s). And if you want to drill deep, Money and Power… by William Cohan reveals in detail Goldman’s style and influence, and the scandal of what’s legal.

Goldman Sachs did get dinged recently for five billion dollars to resolve serious questions from Federal and state authorities over its sale of mortgage-backed securities. Sound like a real comeuppance? In 2010 alone, Goldman gave out over three times that much in bonuses. After all, they had to retain the talent that destroyed many trillions in assets of the little guy. Any jail time for those deceptions that garnered the ding? Nope. But the large-sounding number is a big PR splash for DOJ.

That’s a holdover from Eric Holder’s real legacy, kid gloves for banks. Hands-off Holder is now back making millions as a partner at Covington & Burling, a law firm servicing the biggest cheeses in the finance industry. Basically, Holder is part of a DOJ firm within a firm, as a half dozen other top officials at DOJ have also landed there.

Ever wonder what happened with the deadline Holder announced a year ago at the National Press Club as he packed up to migrate to a corner office in the the law firm he always knew he’d return to? Responding in part to a question I’d submitted on the lack of prosecutions, including of small banks, he announced a deadline for US Attorneys to submit potential cases against banks responsible for the economic crisis. That deadline came and went in mid-April of 2015. Forget specific cases, DOJ won’t even say if a significant number was submitted, or if any significant number will go forward. Any bets on how many are in the pipeline as the statutes of limitation roll on?

It’s not just banks. DOJ prosecutions of all white-collar crimes are the lowest in two decades. Who else tasked with financial enforcement is looking ahead to their post-public servant riches?

The Breadline by sculptor Georg Segal, part of the expansive FDR Memorial.
One of FDR’s quotes there, “THEY WHO SEEK TO ESTABLISH SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT BASED ON THE REGIMENTATION OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS BY A HANDFUL OF INDIVIDUAL RULERS… CALL THIS A NEW ORDER. IT IS NOT NEW AND IT IS NOT ORDER.”

Catch an insightful NY Times essay by Senator Elizabeth Warren explaining how enforcement of all kinds can be gutted by putting the insincere and self-serving in key roles in federal agencies.

Here’s Senator Warren’s new report, Rigged Justice, backing her essay with the twenty worst enforcement failures last year.

Remember, a hands-off tone is set entirely within the executive branch. No Congressional molasses need be poured. Consider the revolving door payback for fundraising, for speaking fees, for foundation contributions. The favor machine.

By the way, a year ago a Washington Post analysis showed the largest chunk of corporate donors to the Clinton Foundation was the financial services industry. Single issue, indeed.

Dwelling on payback, if you want to grasp the number of favors awaiting Bill and Hillary’s thank-you notes, read Inside the Clinton Donor Network, a Washington Post investigative piece last fall. It details the billions fundraised by the Clintons over four decades, for elections and for their foundation.

The range leaves one in awe. Foreign interests and those who advocate for them are thick in the donor mix.

Consider Haim Saban, Israeli and American billionaire who rose from the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers to owner of Univision and loads more. He’s been the Clintons' largest contributor over the years, donating and raising many millions for Bill and Hillary, and millions more for the Clinton Foundation.

Some months ago, Saban called for the US government to racially profile Muslims. He did all he could to oppose President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Saban founded the Center of Middle East Policy, which should say something about its honest broker credibility. As it should about the Saban Center for Middle East Policy he founded at the Brookings Institute. Saban served on President Clinton’s Export Council, advising on trade issues. He and his wife had several sleepovers in the White House. Read up on Saban’s past efforts to derail investigations of pro-Israel lobbyists for espionage and to get a preferred congresswoman to head the House Intelligence Committee.

Donors at Saban’s level know how to play Washington like a violin. How does one escape worry that this highly lucrative pro-Likud bird chirping for decades in Bill’s and Hillary’s ears impedes cutting square deals in the Middle East peace process? That it might dampen efforts in a Hillary presidency? There are many elements to past failures of the Middle East peace process, I’m not accusing Bill Clinton of throwing the fight because of Saban or others.

But the will to succeed is everything in really tough challenges. It isn’t hard to undermine pushing boulders up a hill. Think what damage a perpetually failing peace process has done to Middle East stability and to this country’s image, and what that has cost.

Perhaps Diogenes was really seeking an honest broker.

Here’s a couple digressions in the foreign policy realm, on the future of US influence abroad and on corruption in Afghanistan, both sadly with evergreen shelf life.

At least we know Hillary would never turn to the likes of Kissinger for advice. Wait, what’s that?…

If you’d like an excellent summery of why Hillary’s embrace of Kissinger should give pause, here’s a piece by Greg Grandin, detailing a long relationship and what it wrought. NAFTA’s included, a side effect of which was the fracture of union bargaining power.

But what the hey, the White House recently gave Kissinger the Distinguished Public Service Award. Can the rest of us do less? Here’s my tribute.

Hillary’s African-American firewall confuses me. Plenty have written on the Clintons’ roll in ham-handed welfare reform and overkill legislation on crime. And thanks to a clever young protester, Ashley Williams, attention’s been paid to the ultimate dog whistle, bringing young “super-predators” “to heel.” Political personas seeking to look tough on crime and tough on welfare have played havoc with lives in a host of ways. Kind of like looking tough on foreign policy.

But what creeped me out early was was the execution of Ricky Ray Rector just before the 1992 New Hampshire Primary. To signal how tough he’d be on crime, then Governor Clinton returned to Arkansas to preside over the execution. Rector’s murder of a white policeman was horrific, but after the mentally-ill Rector tried and failed to completely blow his brains out, he was so mentally feeble that he put aside the pecan pie in his last meal so he could finish it later.

Now read up on Marc Rich, and consider a different quality of Bill Clinton’s mercy. And a bellwether of Holder’s legacy.

Meanwhile Bernie, who in the early sixties was a Chicago organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), gets snide comments from Hillary surrogates that they never met him in the South. Yeah, there was no segregation up North. Getting arrested in Chicago is always a ticket to fun and games.

Or that his non-southern African-American backers are “a remove” from the South. Dissing Harry Belafonte? Spike Lee?

Mo’ money and prisons. Until last fall, and waves of criticism, Hillary was taking money from bundlers from the private prison industry, an industry that recently got notice for shoddy treatment of warehoused undocumented immigrants. Here’s a column tangential to those with vested interests in expanding prison populations.

A couple memories of different views on fundraising.

When I started scribbling, one of the first politicians I interviewed was Bill Proxmire of Wisconsin, then chair of the Senate banking committee. Few positions have more potential for fundraising. I asked him how he dealt with money in politics. He said in his last election he spent two hundred bucks, mostly on stamps mailing back contributions. His constituents knew he was like The Untouchables. Proxmire couldn’t be bought. And he always won by big margins.

I once asked the chief of staff of Senator Alan Cranston how his boss dealt with fundraising. He deadpanned, People think if they give you a lot of money, they’re buying influence, but all they really buy is access. Cranston was later damaged in an influence scandal involving a bank.

I think Bernie’s running a little closer in spirit to the Proxy model. Hillary, not so much.

Here’s a fine read from the New York Review of Books on how the Clintons prime the pump for the Clinton Foundation, and in turn how the foundation primes the pump for the campaign.

Bernie’s been more than a tilt at the windmill. Polls seem to indicate that Bernie will garner more independents than Trump. And more than Hillary would pick up against Trump. After Trump exhausts calling Bernie a socialist, Trump’s low on ammo.

Modern elections usually usher a different party into the White House when a two-term lessee departs. That’s not a vulnerability for Bernie. However you view him, he’s not more of the same. He’d be heading a new and improved party.

Think back to the two-for-one Clinton presidential offering in 1992. People forget that the Clintons ought to call third-party candidate Ross Perot “Uncle Ross.” It was Perot’s distaste for George Herbert Walker Bush, a former CIA Director who claimed to be “out of the loop” on Iran-Contra, that determined where Perot trained his sizable firepower. In 1996, Bill’s opponent was Bob Dole, who has a great class smart-ass sense of humor but at his core was Nixon’s hatchet man. After moving to DC I kept my Kansas voter registration for years so I could vote against him. Hillary is skilled and smart, but there is not a proven legacy of Clinton campaign juggernauts. 2008, not so great. At times her campaign seemed a Tower of Babel of advisors, consultants and contributors.

For those nostalgic for the Clinton administration’s golden era, Thomas Frank has a few words that bring that era up to date, connecting past glories to ongoing impacts.

Apologies to Gloria Steinem, but most folk, millennial women in particular, instinctively know voting for someone primarily because of gender, race, creed, ethnicity or sexual preference is the flip-side of voting against someone primarily for the same reasons. When I voted for President Obama twice, his being mixed-race was a non-factor. Despite disappointments like Holder, despite the unfulfilled promises of transparency and of journalistic access, despite the disgraceful treatment of whistleblowers, I thought and still think Obama was the best choice. I believe that’s how a growing majority of Americans ultimately choose who gets the top job.

As Bernie channels Teddy Roosevelt in the bully pulpit, his voice rings true against The Big Money.

It’s a precarious leap of faith to envision the Clintons biting the hands that lifted them into the oligarchy.
Torrents will pour forth on Trump realities. Some of those realities are plenty ugly. But people will also learn more of those pulling levers behind Hillary’s curtain. And of their resemblance to the heavies in The Big Short and 99 Homes.

If Hillary takes the nomination, her slogan might be Lie back, close your eyes, and think of the Supreme Court.

Critically important, but I’m not sure that’s the stuff of revolution. Or of voter turnout if cynicism flies off the charts.

My comments neglected the 800 pound orangutan in the room. I don’t want to hurt his feelers so one brief drive-by: Trump’s speech patterns will sound familiar to anyone ever hit hard by a con artist. His jumble of slip and slide phrases allow his marks to hear whatever they want. Until Trump’s responses to the crowd fervor of his base pull him past the point of no return once too often, he’s a better contender than Trump Plaza. Charlie Sheen, you could have been a contender. Winning!



Here’s a thought. If you want Bernie’s supporters to come around for Hillary, quit trying to stifle their voice at every opportunity, quit telling them from the outset their aspirations are hopeless, their efforts pointless, that they’re naive as to what’s possible, that if we end up in Trumpville it’s their fault for not folding early. Cynics might be forgiven for detecting a whiff of efforts to suppress Bernie supporter turnout. Earlier, when his supporters raised a legit question as to why southern primaries, in a region no Democrat will sweep in the general election, should be such an early determinant as to brand the primaries a done deal, some of the commentariat even tried to raise the specter of prejudice. That’s not a path to capture Bernie supporters' hearts and minds.

Now I’ll wait for my musings to implode as the race progresses, with the sudden twist of an economic cool-off.

Thanks for your indulgence and best luck to the country.

Israel-Palestine As An Issue Inside Democratic Politics

Israel's enforcer inside the Democratic Party

Most bloggers I know hate talking about the Israel-Palestine mess. It's been a problem since before the battle of Jericho and no problem anywhere on earth looks as intractable. And discussing it in blogs is a no-win situation. It's an existential problem for both camps-- and by "it," I mean even a square inch in the desert. One thing that does drove me crazy, however, and that I have been willing to write about, are American politicians who put Israel's interests before America's interests-- not just in specific matters that involve Israel, but even in tangential policy making-- like going to war against Iraq, which was viewed as "good for Israel." Back in 2002 the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution was opposed by most House Democrats-- 126-- but a large coalition of Israel-First Democrats (81) crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans. It passed 296-133.

Progressives like Tammy Baldwin (WI), Xavier Becerra (CA), Sherrod Brown (OH), John Conyers (MI), Barney Frank (MA), Mike Honda (CA), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Barbara Lee (CA), John Lewis (GA), Jerry Nadler (NY), Bernie Sanders (VT), Jan Schakowsky (IL) Hilda Solis (CA), resisted the war fever in the air. Even Pelosi voted against it. The aisle crossers were led by Dick Gephardt, Steny Hoyer (MD), Steve Israel (NY) and a revolting coalition of Blue Dogs, New Dems and otherwise liberal California Jews under the sway of Israeli agent Haim Saban.

About a year ago, we looked at polling that showed that most Americans-- if not the congressional Israel-Firsters-- prefer a negotiated settlement with Iran. "Americans back a newly brokered nuclear deal with Iran by a 2-to-1 margin and are very wary of the United States resorting to military action against Tehran even if the historic diplomatic effort falls through... The survey's results suggest that a U.S. public weary of war could help bolster Obama's push to keep Congress from approving new sanctions that would complicate the next round of negotiations for a final agreement with Iran." Now, a year later, the Washington Post is reporting the fight within the Democratic Party over matters in the Middle East is heating up. The core constituents of the Democratic Party-- women, African Americans, Hispanics and younger Americans-- take positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that diverge not only from the positions of Republicans but also from the positions of their elected leaders.

One of the startling findings in American public opinion surveys on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the wide gap between Republicans on the one hand and Democrats and independents on the other. While there is often a sharp division among the public on many issues across party lines, it was once true that, on this specific issue, the gap was much more narrow. Moreover, while Republican political leaders are in harmony with their grass roots when it comes to their policy stances toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Democratic leaders are not. This begs the question: What is driving this gap, and how much is due to changing American demographics? Could Democratic leaders start to feel some of the heat from their publics on this issue? Findings among two segments of the public that are important for the future of the Democratic Party-- Hispanics and young people-- indicate that this gap may grow further.

Let’s start with the gap. About two-thirds of Americans tend to want the U.S. government to lean toward neither side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but among the remaining one-third, significantly more people want the United States to lean toward Israel than the Palestinians. When this is broken down along party lines, the results are substantially different. In our most recent probabilistic Internet poll of 1,008 American adults, fielded by GfK, the differences across party lines are wide: 51 percent of Republican respondents want the United States to lean toward Israel, compared to 17 percent of Democrats. While most Democratic and independent respondents want the United States to lean toward neither side (77 percent and 73 percent, respectively), less than half of Republicans want the United States to remain neutral. While there is less support for leaning toward Palestinians versus Israel across party lines, slightly more Democrats than Republicans would favor leaning toward Palestinians.

...Part of this division is explained by the attitudes of the evangelical right respondents within the Republican Party, who not only overwhelmingly want the United States to lean toward Israel, but also tend to rank the Arab-Israeli issue higher in their priorities in comparison with the rest of the population. Nearly two-thirds of evangelicals want the United States to lean toward Israel, compared with about one-fifth of non-evangelicals. When it comes to how the Israeli-Palestinian issue ranks among U.S. interests, significantly more evangelicals than non-evangelicals (36 percent vs. 18 percent, respectively) rank it as the single-most issue or among the top three issues. On more concrete issues, the attitudes of this group tend to be even stronger than those of Jewish Americans. Nearly half of evangelicals favor the “Jewishness” of Israel more than its democracy, compared to only about one-third of Jewish American respondents.

...Another part of the story is not entirely new: the attitudes of women and African Americans. These segments, which provide essential support for the Democratic Party, also have been far more inclined to want the United States to lean toward neither side of the conflict and have tended to show this when it comes to concrete issues. This remains the case in this newest poll. For example, female respondents who want the United States to lean toward neither side in the conflict outnumber their male counterparts by 10 percentage points. This relationship tends to hold across party lines, with the percentage of those supporting neutrality consistently higher among women than men. African American respondents also overwhelmingly favor neutrality, with 80 percent saying the United States should lean toward neither side. This number is slightly less among Republican African Americans, but over half still favor neutrality. Among various ethnicities, African Americans had the highest proportion (78 percent) of those who favor Israel’s democracy rather than its Jewishness.

...Hispanic Americans have become increasingly central to U.S. electoral politics, and their expanding population means that their role will only increase. They tend to identify themselves far more often as Democrats than Republicans or independents, and they have become a sizable segment of the Democratic Party. It would seem that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is not a central cause to them, but surprisingly, they tend to rank it much higher than the rest of population — though obviously not nearly as high as Jewish Americans and evangelical Christians do. Twelve percent of Hispanic respondents rank the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the single most important issue for U.S. interests, compared with 4 percent of non-Hispanics. This contrast is even more pronounced among Democrats, with 17 percent of Hispanic Democrats ranking it as the top issue versus only four percent of non-Hispanic Democrats.

In general, Hispanic Americans want the United States to remain neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more than the rest of the population. Even more telling: Among Hispanic respondents who want the United States to take a side, the ratio of those who want it to lean toward Israel versus the Palestinians is much closer than among the rest of the population. In fact, among Hispanic Democrats, the ratio is roughly 1:1, with those who want the United States to lean toward either Israel or the Palestinians each making up 13 percent of the Hispanic population.

...Generally, younger adults (ages 18 to 29) tend much more to want the United States to lean toward neither side. But among young Democratic respondents, the results are more striking: Among those who want the United States to lean toward one side or the other, more young people want the United States to lean toward the Palestinians than toward the Israelis (12 percent vs. 10 percent, respectively). This attitude is unique among this age group, as only 5 percent or less of Democrats in each older age group want the United States to lean toward the Palestinians. This contrasts sharply even with female and African-American respondents within the Democratic Party. Even among those who want the United States to lean toward Israel, young people seem to be much more pragmatic about their motivations. Almost half say they feel supporting Israel serves the interests of the United States, while the number who feel this way hovers around one-third among the other age groups, which are much more likely than young people to say that supporting Israel is their religious or ethnic duty.

Is Haim Saban Any Better Than Sheldon Adelson?

Adelson and Saban with the Israeli American Council guy

In 2000 I found myself in a car with state Senator Adam Schiff and his parents on our way to an event in a mansion on the West Side. Schiff was in the midst of what turned out to be the most expensive congressional campaign in American history at the time-- against villainous impeachment manager and right-wing ideologue James Rogan. The Pasadena-Burbank-Glendale district was changing demographically and this was to be Rogan's last term-- but we didn't know that at the time. A decade later the district is D+20 and Republicans don't even run candidates any longer. But in 2000 it was a swing seat. Schiff won 53-44% and the mansion we were driving to was the source of quite a big chunk of the cash it took to win. It was the home of the Democrats' very own Sheldon Adelson-- Egyptian-Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban.

Like me, Saban, was eager to see Rogan defeated, in great part for his role in impeaching President Clinton. But I soon discovered there wasn't much else I had in common with Saban, as an impassioned Israel-first absolutist as Republican Israeli-Americans Sheldon and Miriam Adelson. Soon after Schiff was elected, I broke with him over his connivance with George Bush to attack Iraq, a position being pushed by Israel and, of course, Adelson's and Saban's Republican and Democratic money machines. As we saw before, Israel covers its bases. Two dual citizens, both billionaires, GOP mobster Sheldon Adelson and Democratic media magnate Haim Saban help finance both party establishments. Whoever wins, Israel has a friend in the Washington-- or, more appropriately, many, many friends. Adelson and Saban and their wives have shelled out tens of millions of dollars each for their "teams." This kind of undue influence over national security from a foreign state should be strictly illegal and Adelson and Saban should be-- but will certainly never be-- investigated for bribery (for starters).

Saban is far more comfortable with-- and supportive of-- Hillary than Obama, who he never trusted. Saban hasn't just helped parasites like Adam Schiff; he's helped finance the Clinton machine for years and has been uncomfortable with Obama and his slightly less subservient posture towards Israel. He put up the dough for the controversial Hillary movie that features international figures including Netanyahu of course singing her praises. "I hope she will run. She would be a wonderful president,” said Saban, who gave $1 million last year to a super PAC that raised money for Priorities USA and other groups. "If it happens, we will of course pitch in with full might. Seeing her in the White House is a big dream of mine."

Other big dreams of his include a nuclear smoldering Iran.

Major Democratic donor Haim Saban said on Sunday that if he were running Israel he would “bomb the living daylights” out of Iran if the current nuclear negotiations produce a bad deal for Israel.

Speaking at a conference of the Israeli American Council at the Washington Hilton opposite Republican casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, Saban said that if he were in the shoes of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the event of a deal with Iran that he judged to be dangerous with Israel, “I would bomb the living daylights out of these sons of bitches.”

Saban, a major Obama donor in 2012 and Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008, also expressed deep skepticism of Obama’s policy towards Iran.

“At the moment we could have increased the sanctions, we decreased them, and that was a mistake in my view,” he said.

He said that he hopes Sen. Lindsey Graham’s proposed bill to vote yes or no on the potential Iran deal will pass, and that “We should have taken some steps to show that we, the United States, mean business.” The military option, he said, needs to be “a real option and not lip service.”

...In a rare joint public appearance, Adelson and Saban discussed the peace process, the Iranian nuclear negotiations, the Boycott, Divestment Sanctions movement, and joked (or seemed to joke) about buying the New York Times together to produce more positive journalism about Israel. They are two of the most influential donors in American politics; Adelson is a major funder of Republican causes and candidates, and Saban, an Israeli-American, was once the top donor to the Democratic Party. Adelson and Saban are both backing the Israeli American Council, which hosted the event.

The two seemed to share a rapport and agreed on many issues, though Adelson presented a harder line on the peace process, saying that the “so-called Palestinians” are an “invented people” and that Israel should build a “big wall” to separate itself from them.

“It is not about granting a Palestinian state,” Saban said, in defense of the two-state solution. “It’s about securing the future of a democratic Israel.”

“You are committing demographic suicide,” Adelson argued. “Israel can no longer live if you say we want to live as a democracy.”

Sunday, the Washington Post interviewed Saban and reported that he described Obama's relationship with Netanyahu as "like oil and water." That has fed a perception, he said, that Obama has not been a friend to Israel, although Saban said he thinks that, in reality, "there’s never been this level of cooperation with any previous president." But he assured The Post that Hillary Clinton will "repair the relationship," which is the way Israel-firsters refer to allowing Israel to run U.S. foreign policy.

[The chairman of the Israeli American Council Shawn] Evenhaim asked the men whether they think the news media are biased against Israel. Saban said they are but cited two exceptions: Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal. He joked to Adelson that they should have bought The Post together.

“I wish that Jeff Bezos hadn’t bought the Washington Post,” Saban said, referencing the Amazon.com founder who purchased The Post a year ago. “For $250 million-- bupkis-- he stole it.”

Adelson countered, “Why don’t you and I go after the New York Times?” Saban said that he has “tried over and over to buy it” but that the family-owned Times is not for sale. Adelson quipped, “There is only one way to fight it: money.”

UPDATE: Israelis Grow Wary Of The Vegas Mafia Kingpin Taking Over Their Politics

Adelson doesn't like journalism-- and journalism doesn't like Adelson. And politicians are growing mistrustful of him as well-- at least in Israel. His giant Israeli newspaper, a mouthpiece for Netanyahu and other right-wing politicians is being viewed skeptically by a wide range of Israelis.

A bill titled a "law for the advancement and protection of written journalism in Israel” passed a preliminary hurdle in the Knesset today. Although it doesn’t say so explicitly, the bill is aimed at limiting the free distribution of Israel Hayom (Israel Today), the free newspaper owned by American casino magnate and Republican super-funder Sheldon Adelson.

...The anti-Adelson bill is like Israel’s Citizens United-- in reverse. Although launched a few years before the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, Israel Hayom is like a Citizens United effort, where a political advocacy group attempted (and ultimately succeeded) in circumventing campaign finance limits by portraying an anti-Hillary Clinton film as media subject to First Amendment protection, rather than independent political expenditures.

Adelson has taken a page from American politics by casting Israel Hayom as a newspaper rather than an extended political pamphlet. One would expect nothing less from someone who doesn’t like journalism.

Who Is Israel Backing For President… Of The United States?

Hillary and her Israeli controller, Haim

Israel covers its bases. Two dual citizens, both billionaires, GOP mobster Sheldon Adelson and Democratic media magnate Haim Saban help finance both party establishments. Whoever wins, Israel has a friend in the Washington-- or, more appropriately, many, many friends. Adelson and Saban and their wives have shelled out tens of millions of dollars of dollars each for their "teams." This kind of undue influence over national security from a foreign state should be strictly illegal and Adelson and Saban should be-- but will certainly never be-- investigated for bribery (for starters).

Friday, Israel's biggest daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, which generally publishes a moderate perspective and does not follow Netanyahu's far right line, announced that Saban is all-in for Hillary Clinton. That's not exactly news, since Saban has helped finance the Clinton machine for years and has been uncomfortable with Obama and his slightly less subservient posture towards Israel. He put up the dough for the controversial Hillary movie that features international figures including Netanyahu singing her praises.

“I hope she will run. She would be a wonderful president,” said Saban, who gave $1 million last year to a super PAC that raised money for Priorities USA and other groups. Priorities backed Obama in 2012 and is in the process of morphing into a pro-Clinton endeavor.

“If it happens, we will of course pitch in with full might,” Saban added. “Seeing her in the White House is a big dream of mine.”

Saban’s comments about Vice President Joe Biden were also noteworthy.

“I think that if Vice President Biden decides to run, Obama will stay neutral, but if Biden does not run and she does, he will support her,” Saban said. “The general feeling is that Hillary is Obama’s natural successor.”

Biden has made clear he wants to be taken seriously as a potential 2016 hopeful, but he was was depicted in the 2012 retrospective Double Down as a nuisance to Obama’s aides, who engaged in loose talk about replacing him on the ticket with Clinton.

The early signal from Saban is a reminder that Clinton will have plenty of outside cash to help her in a potential campaign. And unlike Obama, who had an uncomfortable relationship with Priorities USA that kept a number of donors at bay, the Clintons have historically had no such worry. Bill Clinton provided a major boost to Priorities in mid-2012 at a time when it was struggling.

As for Biden, the question of whether Obama campaign manager Jim Messina will join Priorities USA has been delayed, according to multiple sources, because of the dust-up over Double Down. The central figure in that episode was former White House chief of staff William Daley, and Obama has said he himself never considered such a thing, but the information in the book has left a bad taste in the mouths of Biden allies.

Presumably we'll find out which Republican the Israeli right is supporting from Adelson's trashy giveaway, Israel HaYom. So far this year, Adelson hasn't announced which GOP candidate he'll be supporting. He's been demanding tough statements that favor bombing Iran-- the basic Israeli position, as usual-- and he and the wife have handed out around $200,000, mostly to the local congressman he owns, Joe Heck, and to the NRCC (around $65,000) and the RNC (around $100,000).

Best bet: Chris Christie

Whose Side Is Chuck Schumer On? When He Says "Us," Who Does He Mean?

Aside from AIPAC, Israel has two enormous guns buying leverage for it inside U.S. politics-- mobster Sheldon Adelson on the GOP side and another shady billionaire, Haim Saban, on the Democratic side. The two shovel out immense sums of money to politicians to keep Israeli national interests front and center above even American national interests. We've gone overAdelson ad nauseum here and I think most DWT readers know he's married to an Israeli and that he's a major figure in Israeli politics through ownership of large right-wing media properties. Here in the U.S., he and his wife have given millions and millions of dollars to right-wing candidates who pledge fealty to Israeli interests.

On the other side of the aisle, the Israelis have a dual citizen, billionaire Haim Saban, making sure Democrats stay as loyal to Israel as Adelson does with the GOP. He and his wife Cheryl, have poured millions of dollars-- at least $20 million-- into Democratic Party politics with huge contributions to the DNC, DCCC and DSCC and directly to pro-Israeli candidates. I went to one of his lavish fundraising events with then-state Senator Adam Schiff, who ran as a progressive and, after an election he won with very generous Saban help, joined the Blue Dogs and then became a vocal supporter of Bush's unjustifiable attack on Iraq. Haim also funded-- at least $175,000 directly-- a shady SuperPAC, Committee to Elect Effective Valley Congressman, to back NeoCon Henry Waxman against Brad Sherman. Saban has given immense sums of money to Eric Cantor (R-VA) and to powerful Democratic players like Steve Israel (D-NY), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Harry Reid (D-NV), the Clintons, and, of course, many thousands to Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Chuck, the guy Ken and I went to high school with (James Madison in Brooklyn) who is now New York's senior senator. In the video up top, he was demagoguing Sunday night at the OHEL Children’s Home and Family Services dinner against President Obama's outreach to Iran for a peaceful settlement. I'm sure Haim and Cheryl were writing him another check.

"Democrats and Republicans are going to work together to see that we don’t let up on these sanctions… until Iran gives up not only its nuclear weapons, but all nuclear weapon capability, all enriched uranium. Every time the Arab world, the Palestinians, have risen against us, we have risen to defeat them.  The one existential threat to Israel’s existence is a nuclear Iran." Us? By "us" he doesn't mean the U.S. He means the foreign country that strafed and torpedoed the USS Liberty killing and wounding over 200 American servicemen when they felt it was in their national interest to do so. Who's side do you think Schumer was on then? The same side as Saban and Adelson, no doubt… "us" was not U.S.

A couple weeks ago I got a creepy call from someone claiming to have gone to high school with me and saying he got my [unlisted] phone number from an alumni publication. He caught me between posts and I didn't mind talking with him for what stetted into 30-40 minutes. Unfortunately, the discussion veered off towards politics and he seemed sickened when I told him I didn't vote for Obama. But he got really truculent when I denounced Schumer. I knew I wouldn't be hearing from him again. Yesterday, Ken told me the same guy called him out of the blue as well. Ken has a better memory than I do-- photographic in fact… but he had as much recollection of our former classmate as I did. And he was smart enough to say goodbye before they could get into talking about Chuck Schumer.

Schumer is, along with Majority Whip Dick Durbin and Conference Secretary Patty Murray ranks just under Harry Reid among Senate Dems. For him to rush off the reservation to score a few cheap shots against Obama's carefully crafted initiative in Iran is nothing short of outrageous. He's backing Netanyahu instead of America. And he's not the only one. Ben Cardin and Steny Hoyer were right there with him expressing distrust in the Obama/Kerry deal. This doesn't augur well for a peaceful settlement.

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were successful in pressuring Congress to hold off on new sanctions before last weekend’s Geneva negotiations.  During the talks, Kerry reportedly warned that new sanctions would be coming down the pike if no deal was struck to pressure Iran.

But a deal was struck, and now the Obama administration has to watch out for new Congressional efforts to sanction Iran-- which would scuttle the deal reached to curb Iran’s enrichment program in exchange for some relief from economic pressure.

In a previous statement, Schumer said that the “disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December.” Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid called the Iran deal an “important first step” but did not fully close off the possibility that new sanctions would be enacted before the six-month deal with Iran is up.

Some Democrats, like the hawkish Rep. Eliot Engel, said that while he doesn’t trust Iran, the deal should be tested. A more likely scenario than immediate sanctions-- which Obama could veto-- are new sanctions that would go into effect in six months, which would up the pressure on the Obama administration to reach a far-reaching deal with Iran.