Nancy Jacobson: Career Of Evil

Nancy Jacobson-- it doesn't get worse in US politics

Marie Newman was on schedule to defeat anti-Choice, anti-gay, corrupt Blue Dog Dan Lipinski in Chicago in the March 20 Democratic primary. Marie had galvanized progressives locally and nationally and raised almost $1.5 million, more than the reactionary, Machine-backed incumbent. Suddenly a Republican virulently anti-Choice 501C, the Susan B. Anthony List jumped in with over $100,000 in anti-Newman ads. No one can remember them ever spending money on behalf of a Democrat before. This cycle, they spent $1,032,404 on campaigns and the only money they spent to help a Democrat went to Lipinski. But they weren't the only group funneling Republican money into Lipinski's campaign in a deep blue (D+6) district. A network of SuperPACs funded by GOP billionaires and directed by two of the most venal characters in Democratic politics, Nancy Jacobson and her repulsive husband, Mark Penn from the Clinton/Fox wing of the Democratic Party, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars smearing Newman on behalf of Lipinski. He pulled out a last minute win:

Blue America and other progressive groups have been urging her to give it another try in 2020. There is far more awareness of who Jacobson and Penn are and what their dark money No Labels organization is up to. Last March basically no one was calling them out but DWT; today the growing awareness precludes them launching any more sneak attacks on progressive Democrats. Yesterday, Sam Stein and Lachian Markay, reporting for the Daily Beast blew their cover for the widest audience yet-- How No Labels Went From Preaching Unity to Practicing the Dark Arts. "No Labels," wrote Stein and Markay, "took the unconventional position that Democrats were to blame for not being more willing to work with Republicans in the destruction of their party’s signature piece of modern legislation (the Affordable Care Act)... The group, which was founded as a champion of political bipartisanship, has been quietly courting donations from some of the most notoriously partisan money men and women in politics." [NOTE: congratulations to Sam Stein for not referring to Jacobson and her corrupt, right-of-center candidates as "moderates."]

According to internal documents obtained by The Daily Beast, No Labels encouraged financiers known for backing hyperpartisan causes to back its own super PACs. Among those courted were individuals who’ve bankrolled massive parts of the Republican Party’s infrastructure, including David Koch, former AIG head Hank Greenberg, and billionaire hedge-fund manager Paul Singer; as well as top supporters of President Donald Trump, including PayPal founder Peter Thiel, businessman Foster Friess, and Home Depot founder Ken Langone. No Labels also courted liberal-minded moneymen, including Michael Vachon, a top political adviser to George Soros (one of the biggest funders of Democratic and progressive causes) and Reid Hoffman, an investor and entrepreneur who has called Trump “worse than useless.” The group also targeted Wendi Murdoch (ex-wife of Rupert and rumored Ivanka Trump pal), uber-agent Ari Emanuel, and Dallas Mavericks owner and oft-rumored presidential aspirant Mark Cuban. Another possible 2020 candidate, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, was also among dozens of high net-worth individuals approached about donating to No Labels’ super PACs.

Most of those targeted for financial support didn’t end up donating to No Labels super PACs. But some notable names did, including former Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, who was encouraged to donate by former Democrat-turned-independent Senator Joe Lieberman, according to internal records.

The attempt to recruit these financiers was, according to sources, part of a concerted effort by No Labels to steer emphasis away from its nonprofit arm and toward campaign operations designed to boost preferred political candidates and target those deemed too extreme or impediments to its policy agenda.

By the end of the 2018 cycle, six No Labels-affiliated super PACs-- No Labels Action, Forward Not Back, United Together, Govern or Go Home, Citizens for a Strong America, and United for Progress-- had collectively raised more than $11 million from 53 individual donors. The average contribution to the groups was about $124,000, illustrating their reliance on high-dollar donors rather than grassroots financial support.

To court those deep-pocketed donors, No Labels leaned on individuals with ties to other prominent potential givers. The group appears to have sought support from Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential candidate who was just elected to the U.S. Senate, though it’s unclear whether it hoped that support would be financial, political, or both. In internal company notes, No Labels proposed having Lieberman contact Brad Bloom-- the leader of the private-equity firm Berkshire Partners and a high-dollar donor to a pro-Romney super PAC in 2012-- “to discuss Mitt” and arrange a meeting with other potential supporters in Boston. Internal documents also note that another super PAC donor prospect, financier David Nierenberg, is a “close friend of Mitt Romney.”

As it privately sought more money for its campaign activities, No Labels also grew more outwardly political. In early 2016, as the presidential primaries raged, No Labels hosted an event in New Hampshire, in which it applauded six candidates for taking its “Problem Solver Promise.” Individuals inside the group were rankled that Donald Trump was among those afforded the distinction. They also were disturbed by the price-tag of the event, which Jacobson confirmed was more than $1 million.

Jacobson-- like her disgusting husband-- is a money-hungry crook and rip-off artist who steals every cent she can get her grubby paws on. She is notorious for ripping off her donors. Jacobson and Penn are considered the two most personally dishonest-- and sestructive-- characters in the contemporary political landscape. Everything they do is to line their own pockets.

“The more one looks under the rock, the more one turns over that rock, it is not an attractive picture. It is a big fundraising operation run with limited results,” said one former No Labels official. “You go in first, there are donors, they’re having discussions and you think it’s healthy. And then you’re in it for a few months and you wonder, what are we doing?”

The overtly political approach has also landed No Labels in legal drama. The group is being sued by the firm Applecart, formerly one of its top political consultants, which has accused No Labels of not paying them for millions of dollars of work and of firing them in favor of consultants with personal ties to Jacobson. No Labels alleges Applecart’s performance was error-filled and ineffective and in an emailed statement, Dan Webb, counsel for No Labels’ political groups, blamed Applecart for the leaks of internal documents.

“No Labels is currently in litigation with Applecart, which limits what we can say at this time,” Webb wrote. “Having botched their work for the PACs, Applecart has chosen to sue their political clients and now, apparently, to leak emails and other confidential information in an effort to harm the PACs and No Labels.”

A spokesperson for Applecart declined to comment, but did direct The Daily Beast to a glowing testimonial that Jacobson had previously given for its website.

At the center of No Labels and its evolution is Jacobson. The group’s founder and president is one of the most plugged-in behind-the-scenes operators in all of Washington. At 56 years old, she has been in Democratic politics for decades, working for, among others, Gary Hart and Bill Clinton. Along the way, she served as the Democratic National Committee finance director, where she made a host of connections that would prove advantageous in years to come.

“As a female, it was a way to get a seat at the table,” she said of her time as a Democratic fundraiser.

' A proud, self-professed centrist, she said she felt disillusioned with the bitterness of politics when her last and closest boss, former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), chose to leave office. “This process wore him down,” she recalled. So Jacobson set out to tone down the rancor.

In December 2010, Jacobson launched No Labels. The defining purpose was to “advocate & educate for greater bipartisan cooperation throughout all levels of government.” Though the launch event featured citizens from all 50 states, the concept was also catnip for the wealthy, who tend to see two solutions to every thorny problem: stoic leadership and gobs of money.

...The group also enlisted some of its top supporters to try to court high net-worth individuals on its behalf. Lieberman and Bayh have been integral to those efforts, personally soliciting donors on phone calls and in meetings. And they’ve been remarkably successful. According to internal documents obtained by the Daily Beast, some of the most prominent executives from Fortune 500 companies and leading financial-services firms have contributed to No Labels’ 501(c)(4) dark-money group and its affiliated 501(c)(3) charitable arm. They include:

• Josh Bekenstein, CEO of Bain Capital, who gave $250,000 in 2015.
• John Douglas Arnold, head of Centaurus Advisors, LLC, who gave $200,000 in 2017.
• John Catsimatidis, president, chairman, and CEO of Gristedes Foods, who gave $100,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.”
• Douglas Durst, ‎president of the Durst Organization, who gave $10,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.”
• Carl Ferenbach, co-founder of Berkshire Partners LLC, who gave $20,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.”
• Former Rep. James Charles “Jim” Greenwood (R-PA), who gave $15,000 in 2016.
• Kerry Healey, former lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, who have $25,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.”
• George Hume, president and chief executive of Basic American Foods, who gave $25,000 in 2017.
• Ted Kellner, a Milwaukee business executive, who gave $20,000 in 2017.
• Franklin Pitch Johnson, Silicon Valley venture-capital pioneer, who gave $25,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.”
• Howard Marks, co-founder and co-chairman of Oaktree Capital Management, who gave $125,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.”
• Nelson Peltz, founding partner of Trian Fund Management, who gave $500,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.”
• Marc J. Rowan, co-founder of the private-equity firm Apollo Global Management, who gave $150,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.”
• Andrew Tisch, co-chair of Loews Corporation, who gave $62,500 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.”
• Christy Ruth Walton, a Walmart heiress, who gave $25,000 in 2017.
• Eric Zinterhofer, founding partner of Searchlight Capital Partners, who gave $50,000 in 2016 and was labeled a “reoccuring donor.”

All told, the document revealed that donors had pledged to give $4,792,000 to No Labels non-profit arm in 2017. The source who provided these documents asked that they not be published in full so as to not reveal their origins. Metadata confirms that they were company documents, as they were last edited in March 2017 by No Labels Chief of Staff Sasha Borowsky.

While Lieberman and Bayh’s association with the group, and the impression that it’s backed by some of the biggest names in finance, has given No Labels a stately reputation, behind the scenes, numerous ex-officials say the organization more closely resembles a disorganized campaign apparatus.

Ex-aides said there is incredibly high turnover. And according to one former staffer, No Labels executives would ask employees to write positive reviews on the job-posting and workplace review site Glassdoor to counteract the more numerous bad ones. Asked if that was the case, Jacobson simply shrugged and casually said, “yeah.”

There have also been internal disagreements over the organizational mission. In one March 2018 email, Ryan Clancy, the group’s top strategist, expressed fears to Jacobson that Pelosi would advise her caucus to shut out No Labels if they went after her. She could, Clancy wrote, “go all Harry Reid on us.”

The reference was to an episode that remains part of internal No Labels lore. During the 2014 cycle, the group endorsed Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) in his challenge to Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), after the congressman embraced their “Problem Solver” label and Udall declined to do so. Then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was furious and, according to his former communications director Adam Jentleson, leaned on his members to dissociate themselves from the group. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) subsequently did, noting in part that Udall’s record was strong on bipartisanship.

“It seemed like they wanted to flex, to say if you’re not willing to be a ‘problem solver’ they might throw you under the bus,” said a source who previously worked for a member of the No Labels’ Problem Solver caucus. “The message was that all the bipartisanship didn’t count if you didn’t accept their branding.”

But instead of tamping down the politics after that 2014 episode, the group picked it up. And some officials say it has coincided with a larger role for Penn.

Best known for his work for both the Bill and Hillary Clinton presidential campaigns, Penn’s reputation is that of a numbers-crunching centrist who championed the concept of “micro-targeting” voters by their commercial, cultural, and political interests. His firm advised numerous clients before he left to do a stint at Microsoft. In 2015, he founded the Stagwell Group, a private equity firm. And within months, the firm had acquired SKDKnickerbocker, a powerhouse Democratic consultancy with a number of executives who worked on or with Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Though he has no formal affiliation with No Labels, Penn’s imprints are evident. He was once listed as a press contact for the group’s tax exempt arm, The New Center. And according to a source who worked with No Labels super PACs, Penn and two SKDK executives-- managing director Bill Knapp, a close friend of Jacobson and Penn, and political ad production director Andrew Shipley-- helped produce and place ads, and signed off on their substantive contents.

Internal emails sent in 2018 and obtained by the Daily Beast show Shipley editing the contents of one ad subject to Jacobson’s approval. Another shows Shipley briefing No Labels staff on the contents of another ad, and getting direct sign-off from both Jacobson and Penn to put the final product on air.

In another email thread, Penn instructed Knapp to “scope” an ad buy for a No Labels super PAC. Asked whether SKDK or another firm would make the actual buy, Penn wrote, “I’ll decide who to use based on which one I like better.”

Penn did not respond to a request for comment, though a source confirmed that he did personally see questions pertaining to the role that he has played. His presence within the No Labels orbit has caused a fair amount of consternation there, especially as he has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s 2016 election meddling-- a posture those who’ve worked with Penn assume he has adopted as a way to ingratiate himself with Donald Trump.

In statements prepared by No Labels for the Daily Beast, both Lieberman and Bayh took umbrage with any suggestion that Penn was the force behind the curtain; though, of the nearly dozen sources contacted for this piece, none made such a suggestion. Jacobson pushed back herself, calling “the fundamental premise” of such questions both “shameful and sexist.”

“If a man were running No Labels, would you be making the same suggestion-- based on little to no evidence-- that his spouse is serving as the puppet master behind the scenes?” Jacobson asked. “Eight years ago, I came up with the idea for No Labels and have led it, as a full time volunteer, ever since. I have put my life into this work with the singular goal of helping to heal our bitterly divided country and to support leaders who want to work together to solve America’s problems. I set the direction for No Labels, not my husband.”

Those who have worked with Jacobson said they weren’t surprised by her pushback. Despite running one of Washington’s higher-profile organizations, and being a fixture of the D.C. elite, she rarely does television and is incredibly protective of her reputation. Nor were they surprised when Jacobson personally emailed the Daily Beast hours later, requesting that its reporters come to her office the next day to talk in person.

“You don’t know me however you stand ready to tear down the work I have done for the past 10 years because you are being fed stories from disgruntled employees and contractors,” the email read.

Problem Solvers Caucus Has Never Solved A Problem; They're Paid By Conservative Billionaires To Make Problems For Progressives

Jacobson & Penn: Murdoch pays they to undermine the Democratic Party

You've heard the term "Fox Democrat," right? Mark Penn is the prototype. Politically he's another Bill and Hillary Clinton-Tony Blair fox in the henhouse shitbag always working to pull the Democratic Party rightward-- for which he gets paid-- and handsomely so-- by wealthy conservatives. If anything, his wife, Nancy Jacobson-- a professional fundraiser-- is even worse. They are the couple from hell behind the corporately-funded No Labels cabals. Their web of dark money PACs and SuperPACs finance the Republican wing of the Democratic Party with money from-- for example-- Republican billionaires like the Murdoch family. And they make their living by taking a cut from every penny that comes in. And Penn's poison has spread all over the world-- supporting center-right candidates from Menachem Begin in Israel, Carlos Andrés Pérez (El Gocho) in Venezuela and Belisario Betancur in Colombia to Tony Blair, Ed Koch and, of course, the Clintons.

In the past cycle, Penn and the Mrs. were behind the sewer money-- from charter school fanatics, hedge fund managers and GOP financiers-- that flooded into Democrat primaries against Marie Newman in Chicago, Alan Grayson in Orlando, Deb Haaland in Albuquerque, Matt Heinz in Tucson and Susan Wild in the Philly suburbs. They are behind shady conservative PACs like United for Progress, United Together, Forward Not Back, Progress Tomorrow, Patriotic Americans PAC, Citizens for a Strong America, etc, entirely funded by contributions from 5 and 6-figure right wing donors, such as Rupert Murdoch, his son James Murdoch, Chicago White Sox and Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf, hedge fund manager Louis Bacon, former Major League Baseball Commissioner Allan Selig and Wheels Inc. executive Jim Frank and like-minded sleaze bags trying to turn the Democratic Party into another corporately-owned arm of Wall Street, just like the GOP.

This week, Sam Stein, writing for the Daily Beast, reported that it is the No Labels operation behind the Moulton coup plot against Pelosi. That should come as no surprise to anyone who follows DWT, even if the mainstream media hasn't caught on yet. Unfortunately, Stein's readers will all be confused because he mistakenly refers to the conservative conspiracy as "moderates," which is absolutely NOT what they are. Stein should know better.

Internal communications reviewed by the Daily Beast show that early this year the group No Labels, a centrist [he means right-of-center] advocacy organization, contemplated a plan to kneecap Pelosi’s political standing. In one exchange, a top official with the group even laid out the pros and cons of turning the California Democrat into a “bogeyman.”

That was well before Democrats took back the House of Representatives. In the weeks since they reclaimed congressional power, Pelosi has sought to earn back the Speaker’s gavel. And though the vast majority of her caucus supports her bid, moderate [he means right-of center] Democrats allied with No Labels remain some of the few party members refusing to give her their votes absent concessions from Pelosi and her team.

No Labels has publicly couched its efforts in conciliatory language, posting items on its website that subtly nudge other Democrats towards a Pelosi challenge, or that gently suggest it might be time for a leadership change. The group also wants Pelosi to commit to weakening the power of party leaders and committee chairs, among other measures that it says will empower rank and file members and reduce gridlock.

Behind the scenes, No Labels and its leader, political strategist Nancy Jacobson, have been more skeptical of Pelosi and more willing to try and marginalize her among her members.

Rupert

Emails obtained by the Daily Beast show that No Labels leadership contemplated a campaign to attack Pelosi aggressively after the primary campaign of centrist Rep. Dan Lipinski, who faced a primary challenge this year from Marie Newman, a progressive political neophyte. Lipinski’s pro-life stance had alienated a number of Democrats, but he was a proud member of the No Labels-backed House Problem-Solvers Caucus, and the group worked through a network of allied super PACs to support his reelection bid.

“Nancy, I have been thinking about our using Pelosi as the chief bogeyman in our messaging post-Lipinski,” began one email, subject line: “Pelosi as bogeyman.”

Pelosi had endorsed Lipinski. But No Labels leadership was convinced that her support was a fig leaf. Jacobson, according to a source familiar with the group’s internal deliberations, was convinced that Pelosi had secretly tried to scuttle the congressman’s reelection and proposed publicly attacking the Democratic leader in the run-up to the midterms.

“We were trying to figure out, assuming we got a positive result [in the Lipinski race], which we did, what would be the comms strategy afterwards,” said the source. “Nancy Jacobson’s immediate answer was, ‘I want to make Pelosi the bogeyman.’ She wanted to make it all about Nancy Pelosi and how she was going after incumbent Dems. None of that was true.”

According to the emails, No Labels chief strategist Ryan Clancy appears to have tried to talk Jacobson down. A direct confrontation with Pelosi would blow back on the group’s congressional allies, he explained. It would also be unprecedented; No Labels had never engaged in similar campaigns against congressional leaders of either party. Clancy instead proposed to make Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) the object of the group’s criticism. Unlike Pelosi, Sanders had actually endorsed Newman; had no procedural power to wield against members of the Problem-Solvers Caucus; and wasn’t even a Democrat.

“This is us, in effect, declaring war on Pelosi,” Clancy warned. “No Labels has never identified a party leader as ‘the enemy’ before. We didn’t do it with Obama or Trump. We haven’t done it with Schumer, Ryan, or McConnell. If we do this, we should consider some very real downsides.”

At the end of his memo, Clancy conceded that, “at some point,” No Labels “is probably going to go to war with Pelosi. And it probably should.” But “I don’t know that now is the time to do it, especially when we have a perfectly good villain to use in Bernie.”

No Labels has worked diligently alongside the Republican Party to diminish and demonize both Pelosi and Bernie. That's what they do; that's who they are-- the heart and soul of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. That's why it sickened me to see the DCCC and other Democratic groups spending tens of millions of dollars to recruiting the elect conservative shitbags like Ben McAdams (UT), Abigail Spanberger (VA), Anthony Brindisi (NY), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Max Rose (NY), Mikie Sherrill (NJ), Xochitl Small (NM), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Jason Crow (CO), etc.

This year, No Labels spent hundreds of thousands of dollars from GOP contributors who wanted to make sure there was a pliable conservative represneting Orlando, not Alan Grayson. The vicious, non-stop attacks against Grayson that Jacobson orchestrated were meant to help Darren Soto, a conservative backbencher who regularly sells his votes. But, according to leaked internal communications that Edward-Isaac Dovere published at The Atlantic yesterday, Jacobson had soured on him and wanted to destroy him-- and other conservative Democrats who didn't live up to her nefarious expectations.

“So Soto is now asst whip …” Jacobson wrote in an internal email on January 17. Margaret White, a senior adviser, responded: “And he is boycotting the inauguration …”

“Not a promising early development,” Clancy chimed in.

Less than an hour later, Jacobson wrote back, posing a question: “Do we ever take on someone we helped …?”

The conversation appears to have faded after that, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Jacobson on Monday initially responded to questions from The Atlantic by saying the group had never considered challenging Soto. “We supported Darren Soto. Heavily. Both his elections. 2016 and 2018. Over 1.5 million total,” she wrote in an email.

When presented with what she had previously written to her staff about him, she responded, “As a group we support people who are willing to work across the aisle to solve problems and don’t support people who put partisanship above progress. As a consequence-- we consider lots of options and ideas and we always hold true to our central values of promoting bi-partisan solutions to our nation’s problems.”

...No Labels looked into taking out another Democrat almost a year later. In December 2017, Jacobson sent an email to advisers and people in New Hampshire with the subject line “advice asap” in search of how to respond to Annie Kuster, a Democratic congresswoman, with whom she had just had a call asking her to rejoin the Problem Solvers Caucus.

“It did NOT go well. She ended up hanging up on me … She told me our group was offensive … She told me we had accomplished nothing and that she was the true bipartisan,” Jacobson wrote, calling herself “shaken up by her aggressive and hostile actions and speech.” She then asked for help on the ground to mount a campaign against Kuster. In follow-up emails to people in New Hampshire, Jacobson asked about potential primary challengers, including Dick Swett, a former representative and ambassador, and Steve Marchand, who was running in the gubernatorial primary by talking up his 2016 support for Bernie Sanders.

Upon being told they were weak, Jacobson asked about Republicans and asked for contact information for one of the candidates running. “What are the political facts about her district?” Jacobson asked in one email in December 2017. “Why are there no republican challengers?” she asked in another. She also reached out directly to Swett to ask him about running.

On Monday, Jacobson said, “We support members of Congress who truly want to reach across the aisle to solve problems. We have a strong citizen group in New Hampshire that is very disappointed in Congresswoman Kuster and her disdain for our mission.”

At the same time Stein and Dovere were publishing their pieces, Stein's old comrade in arms, Ryan Grim, put up a related blockbuster at The Intercept: Who's The Mystery Man Behind The Latest Pelosi Putsch? It's Mark Penn. Grim's right on target: "a small group of billionaire-backed Democrats, part of the so-called Problem Solvers Caucus in Congress, has launched a last-ditch effort that threatens to derail Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s election as House speaker. They’ve framed their challenge to Pelosi, a California Democrat, in terms of good government and high-minded bipartisanship. Yet the force behind their campaign is one of the most toxic and notorious partisan warriors the Democratic Party has produced in the past three decades: political and corporate consultant Mark Penn." No bullshit about "moderates," especially not when he introduced Penn-protégé and Wall Street whore-- founder of the Problem Makers Caucus-- Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ).

The links between Gottheimer and Penn go back decades. Gottheimer was Penn’s assistant in the Bill Clinton White House in the 1990s. Then in 2006, when Penn was CEO of the consulting firm Burson-Marsteller, he hired Gottheimer as an executive vice president, with Gottheimer reporting directly to him. When Penn became chief strategist of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, he brought on Gottheimer as an adviser. In 2012, Penn set up shop at Microsoft, where he built a guerrilla PR operation to do battle in Washington with rival Google. There, too, he brought on Gottheimer.

Gottheimer had the full-throated support of both Bill and Hillary Clinton when he ran for Congress in 2016, with Hillary Clinton calling him “something of a family member.”

No Labels launched what it called “The Speaker Project” in this past June, proposing a sweeping set of rules changes that lawmakers should demand before agreeing to elect the next speaker, which by then was presumed to be a Democrat. The next month, the Problem Solvers Caucus embraced the plan. In September, Penn went on Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News to talk up the project. “There’s a problem-solvers group that is looking to have some influence if the result is close, in terms of changing the rules and naming the speaker,” Penn said.

A lawsuit this summer by former No Labels contractors who alleged that they were bilked by the group claimed that Penn was was “calling the shots” at the organization. Penn, according to the Washington Post, has denied involvement with the operation of No Labels, and the group rejected the assertion that he was in charge. Neither No Labels nor Penn responded to The Intercept’s questions about Penn’s relationship with the group.

But aside from the claims of the contractors, there are also direct links between groups Penn owns and No Labels’s political activity. Penn is a minority owner of the consulting firm Targeted Victory, which the group contracted with for some of its 2018 campaigns. No Labels uses an affiliate, Victory Passport, for its online fundraising. Penn’s firm Harris Interactive does the group’s polling; SKDKnickerbocker, of which Penn is an owner, produces and places the group’s television ads, as it did in its campaign to support the re-election of Rep. Daniel Lipinski in Illinois, according to the lawsuit. Hilary Rosen, an SKDK partner, said that the firm does not produce ads for No Labels.

The New Center, a think tank launched by No Labels to house its 501c3 nonprofit operation, listed Mark Penn as a contact for inquiries about its invitation-only “ideas summit.” Penn is managing partner and president of the Stagwell Group, the holding company that owns SKDKnickerbocker. Penn regularly talks up the great work of No Labels during his appearances on Fox News.

...Penn is notorious in Washington as the metaphorical devil on the shoulder, whispering toxic advice into the ears of Democratic candidates. Penn and Jacobson were both early players in the Democratic Leadership Council, a faction that emerged within the party in the 1980s to push it to align with corporate money and to move in a more conservative direction. He’s perhaps most well known for urging his client, Hillary Clinton, to attack Barack Obama as un-American during the 2008 presidential primary.

In a now-famous 2007 memo to Clinton, Penn noted that there had been much coverage in the media of Obama’s “boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii… geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light. Save it for 2050.”

In other words, Penn argued, an appeal to diversity wouldn’t work politically for another half-century. “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values,” he wrote.

How Penn planned to isolate Obama’s alleged otherness is a window into how he views the kind of glossy, good government rhetoric now deployed by No Labels-- its meaning is found less in what it says than in what it doesn’t. He advised Clinton that “we give some life to this contrast without turning negative” by elevating the values she grew up with as uniquely American. “Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century.”

That, Penn argued, would make an implicit contrast with Obama, who allegedly lacked those values-- “fairness, compassion, responsibility, giving back”-- due to his lack of American roots. “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t. Make this the new American Century, the American Strategic Energy fund. Let’s use our logo to make some flags we can give out. Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds,” he advised. “We are never going to say anything about his background-- we have to show the value of ours when it comes to making decisions, understanding the needs of most Americans-- the invisible Americans.”

Clinton, clumsy in her rhetoric, would occasionally make the subtext into text. In a 2008 speech in West Virginia after she beat Obama in Indiana, she said, “Senator Obama’s support among working-- hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” (Obama went on to win Indiana in the general election.)

A more effective dog-whistler, in the 2016 campaign, would boil the Penn approach down to just four words: “Make America Great Again.” Donald Trump was named by No Labels in 2016 as an official “Problem Solver.”

A Trump surrogate accepted the award, even though two months earlier, Trump had spoken at a No Labels conference and delivered a speech larded with Trumpisms. (Since his 2017 swearing in, Gottheimer, the Problem Solvers Caucus chair, has voted with Trump more than half the time, according to FiveThirtyEight.)

Here's a real problem that needs solving-- and urgently. Don't be surprised that not one so-called Problem Solver has signed on-- and no one supported by No Labels of course. It wouldn't surprise me if we get a Republican signed on before a "problem solver."

Is Hillary Going To Embrace Third Way, The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party?

Establishment Democrats seem upset that Bernie has turned out to be more than just a nuisance vanity candidate, quite a lot more. His popularity and rising poll numbers have certainly been forcing their candidate to take stands on issues she would have rather not talked about-- from Keystone XL Pipeline to the disastrous trade agreement she was complicit in negotiating, the TPP, and which she has now been forced to disown. Progressives are holding her to a higher standard because of Bernie and she finds herself coming out for progressive policy she's never been particularly comfortable with. She did dig her heals in on Glass-Steagall, but she's been doing a lot of tap-dancing around her relationship to Wall Street and the policies progressives are demanding, another reason why it may have been unhelpful for Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee, to endorse her so early.

Wednesday, during a campaign stop in Bernie Country, she was questioned by a New Hampshire AARP volunteer spokesperson about what she means by "enhancing Social Security," rather than using the Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders term of expanding Social Security. she began her response be assuring the audience (Democrats) that she will "defend Social Security from the continuing efforts by some to privatize it... we are not going to privatize Social Security." She went on to talk about those recipients "who are most vulnerable in terms of what their monthly payout is... primarily divorced, widowed, single women who either never worked themselves or worked only a little" and the need to "get the monthly payment for the poorest Social Security recipients up." She also said "I want to look at raising the cap, I think that’s something we should look at how we do it, because I don’t want it to be an extra burden on middle class families and in some parts of the country, you know, there’s a different level of income that defines middle class. So what do we skip and what level do we start at?" OK, fine... but here's the tricky part:

[W]e do have to consider ways to make sure that the funding of Social Security does maintain the system. I think we have a number of options-- this would be something that I would look at. I do not favor raising the retirement age and I don’t favor it because it might be fine for somebody like me, but the vast majority of working people who have worked hard and have had a difficult, maybe last couple of decades trying to continue to work, it would be very challenging for them. If there were a way to do it that would not penalize or punish laborers and factory workers and long distance truck drivers and people who really are ready for retirement at a much earlier age, I would consider it. But I have yet to find any recommendation that I would think would be suitable.

Progressives were immediately alarmed by the non-definitiveness of her statement. CREDO sent out a note to its members: "Democratic primary voters deserve to know exactly where Secretary Clinton stands on Social Security... Sec. Clinton needs to draw a line in the sand and make it clear that she will veto any bill that cuts Social Security benefits or raises the retirement age." This is non-negotiable for progressives-- and she knows it very well, which is why she's treading so softly. Without explicitly stating that she is against all cuts, her targeted "enhancements: might well be just one half of the discredited Bowles-Simpson plan (discredited by progressives but still beloved by the conservatives and New Dems she's surrounded herself with). Sanders is 100% clear and unambiguous about where he stands: expansion, a position he shares with 43 Democratic senators and 116 of the Democratic House Members.

Writing at HuffPo yesterday, Sam Stein made the point that the centrists and right-leaning folks in the Democratic Party-- the Establishment, the Clinton wing, the Republican wing, the New Dems, the Blue Dogs... however you want to phrase it-- are still spooked by the level of grassroots support for Bernie. "On Wednesday morning," he wrote, "the think tank Third Way held a briefing in which it warned candidates that they risked personal and broadly shared electoral harm if they echoed Sanders' populist message." Third Way is as far right as you can go without crossing over to the GOP. They're not in favor of the candidates on the Blue America page who have already endorsed Bernie and are running on a generally similar platform. Outside of most social issues, the careerists and shills at Third Way have far more in common with Republicans than they do with progressives.

"You would be back to 1972 [if Bernie were nominated]," warned Bill Daley, President Barack Obama's former chief of staff and a Third Way board member, referencing the blowout Richard Nixon win that year. "It was not a happy time for Democrats. The guy has been a socialist his whole life and now decides he is a Democrat and therefore the Democratic Party has got to move to that extreme? I think it is a recipe for disaster."

The rise of Sanders, though unanticipated, has exposed familiar ideological fissures within the Democratic Party. Virtually every modern presidential election has pitted an insurgent candidate with populist appeal against a more centrist-minded or establishment alternative.

Bill Clinton's win in 1992 ushered in a generation of modern, more moderate [he means "conservative" but that's like cursing someone and Sam's such a polite boy] New Democrats. And when Clinton left office, several of his former staffers started up Third Way to discourage the party from reverting to its leftward ways. During the Obama era, the group issued similar warnings about the rise of Democratic populism and played consequential policy roles-- most memorably encouraging lawmakers to abandon the pursuit of a public option during the crafting of health care reform in 2010.

On the eve of a post-Obama America, Third Way's role appears more defensive or, at least, complicated by the few candidates running for the White House. Far from cheerleading Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, it warned her not to mimic her nearest competitor.

"They are really going to beat her up to move further and further and further [to the left] because they assume she is going to get it and they want their piece of flesh," said Daley.

The attack on Sanders, meanwhile, was one of the more overtly aggressive yet to come from within Democratic ranks.

"I think the Third Way message was great in '92 but out of date for a 2016 electorate… I have no doubt that if we can get through the nominating process against such a formidable opponent he will be very strong in the general," said Tad Devine, Sanders' top strategist, in response. "Bernie has the potential to change the composition of the electorate, and getting young people and lower income voters back into it on the side of the Democrats because his message is so powerful and believable coming from him."

...Third Way argued that a focus on issues like a $15 minimum wage, expanding Social Security benefits and advocating for single-payer health care all create the political dynamics that make Democrats electorally vulnerable. But few Democrats have made their campaigns squarely about these three issues in past races.

Third Way is extremely popular in corporate boardrooms and with the banksters who fund it. It has virtually no support from real people though, which helps explain why these people are no longer in Congress:

• Artur Davis (AL)
• Melissa Bean (IL)
• Dan Boren (OK)
• Dennis Cardoza (CA)
• Joe Baca (CA)
• Leonard Boswell (IA)
• Harold Ford (TN)
• Travis Childers (MS)
• Gene Taylor (MS)
• Brad Ellsworth (IN)
• Baron Hill (IN)
• Walt Minnick (ID)
• Mike Ross (AR)
• Charlie Melancon (LA)
• Frank Kratovil (MD)
• Bobby Bright (AL)
• Dan Maffei (NY)
• Jim Marshall (GA)
• John Barrow (GA)
• Bart Stupak (MI)
• Allen Boyd (FL)
• Bart Gordon (TN)
• Shelley Berkley (NV)
• Kathy Dahlkemper (PA)
• Debbie Halvorson (IL)
• John Salazar (CO)
• Steve Dreihaus (OH)
• John Boccieri (OH)
• Harry Mitchell (AZ)
• John Tanner (TN)
• Brian Baird (WA)
• Paul Kanjorski (PA)
• Lincoln Davis (TN)
• Tom Periello (VA)
• Glenn Nye (VA)
• Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)
• Parker Griffith (AL)
• Mike Arcuri (NY)
• Earl Pomeroy (ND)
• Scott Murphy (NY)
• Ike Skelton (MO)
• Chris Carney (PA)
• Betsy Markey (CO)

• Harry Teague (NM)
• Zack Space (OH)
• Pete Gallego (TX)
• Nick Lampson (TX)
• Colleen Hanabusa (HI)
• Tim Holden (PA)
• Nick Rahall (WV)
• Suzanne Kosmas (FL)
• Mike McMahon (NY)
• Bob Etheridge (NC)
• Mike McIntyre (NC)
• Heath Shuler (NC)
• Ben Chandler (KY)
• Mark Critz (PA)
• Kathy Hochul (NY)
• Larry Kissell (NC)
• Joe Garcia (FL)
• Jim Matheson (UT)
• Ron Barber (AZ)
• Brad Schneider (IL)

That's 63 who followed The Third Way who were forced to leave Congress. Here are not-Third Way candidates, real good ones. And here's some non-Third Way news very much worth watching and thinking about:

DCCC Sends A Message: If You Want Financial Help, Vote With The Republicans

Yesterday Sam Stein blew the whistle on how the DCCC has "favored" the worst Democrats in Congress. If you're a regular DWT reader you're well aware of the overall narrative: the DCCC recruits and finances conservatives and discourages and starves progressives. We've mentioned it... frequently. In fact, it's gotten even worse since "ex"-Blue Dog Steve Israel took over the committee and has systematically gone forward institutionalizing a policy Rahm Emanuel put in place in 2006 and that lapsed slightly when Chris Van Hollen ran the show-- but just slightly. Now, however, it's full steam ahead.

Let me share a couple of examples. (This post would never end if I shared all the examples.) On March 20th the big news out of Illinois was that progressive Ilya Sheyman was defeated by garden variety, conservative-leaning, corporate Democrat Brad Schneider. Schneider and 4 other conservative, corporate-leaning Dems were put into the DCCC's Red to Blue program in a matter of hours. The next morning Israel was boasting how they had 5 new candidates-- Tammy Duckworth, Brad Schneider (New Dem), Bill Foster (New Dem), Brad Harriman and Cheri Bustos. He even mentioned that IL-13 was redistricted in a way that would make it much easier for a Democrat to win. But the Democrat that won that night, progressive doctor David Gill, was the only winning candidate not put into the Red to Blue program. He had had the temerity to beat corporate shill and Israel-favored conservative Matthew Goetten. And three months later, David Gill is still not on the Red to Blue list-- even though incumbent Republican Tim Johnson saw the polling numbers and announced he was retiring-- a couple days after he won the Republican primary! Until Joe Walsh destroyed himself Tuesday Dr. Gill's race was probably the surest thing in the state for the DCCC... but Israel would rather see a Republican win than a progressive.

How dare I? Someone's got to tell the truth about what Israel is up to and how he'd rather restock the Democratic caucus with Blue Dogs and New Dems than win back the majority if it means helping to elect progressives. Let take a look at another example-- one down in western North Carolina, NC-10. No one would argue that nasty, extremist, mean-spirited little closet case Patrick McHenry has earned a tough reelection battle but this is another one Israel is ignoring. "Oh," you might say, "he has to pick and chose carefully and decide where to spend DCCC resources where it will do the most good." And that is absolutely true-- and he point of this whole post-- and we'll get to how Steve Israel picks and choses in un momento. Meanwhile, though, let me remind everyone that before the May primary in North Carolina Steve Israel thought enough about the race against McHenry to recruit a candidate to run for the nomination. But instead of picking progressive champion, state Rep. Patsy Keever, he recruited Asheville Mayor Terry Bellamy. Problem is that, despite Israel's fantasies about western North Carolina, only Republican voters like candidates like Bellamy, who is anti-Choice, anti-gay, pro-developer and completely unsuitable to go up against McHenry, a corporate shill just like her. But not only did she lose in Asheville, she lost every single one of the seven counties that make up NC-10. That's how inept and clueless Steve Israel is... but inept, clueless and vindictive.

The day after his pathetic candidate lost the primary, he walked away from NC-10. The far more Republican district next door, where anti-Choice, anti-gay, corporate whore Hayden Rogers, a fellow Blue Dog, won the primary, Israel is excited about. Rogers was immediately put on the DCCC's "Emerging Races" list. That's how he rolls-- and that's what he's turned the DCCC into.

The corporate-oriented New Dems-- think Blue Dogs without the KKK regalia-- has endorsed 27 candidates. 8 still have primaries coming up. But of the 19 who will be running in November, the DCCC is pushing every one of them-- and even some who haven't won their primaries yet. And of the mangy 7 Blue Dogs running in November (+ Rob Wallace who still has a primary run-off), the DCCC has embraced all of them. Just what Congress needs, lots more Democrats who are anti-Choice, anti-gay, anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-family... Isn't that what the Republican Party is for?

So, as Sam Stein pointed out yesterday, "the 17 House Democrats who voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt last week have received more than $1.3 million in financial aid from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee since the start of 2009, a review of campaign finance records shows. That total constitutes roughly one out of every nine dollars that the committee either spent or earmarked for candidates during that time period."

Of course that isn't half the story. When the DCCC gets behind a candidate, they tell big Democratic donors around the country-- as well as sleazy lobbyists in DC-- that these are the candidates the Democratic Party wants funded... and that other candidates should NOT be given any money.

[W]ith anger mounting among the Democrats over the GOP's treatment of Holder, the money breakdown threatens to re-ignite a long-simmering debate over what type of lawmakers are best suited to fill the party's ranks. The 17 Democrats who voted to hold Holder in contempt for the invoking of executive privilege in the Operation Fast and Furious investigation did so under pressure from the National Rifle Association. Their votes demonstrate the gun lobby's continued power within the halls of Congress, while raising the question of why the DCCC lacks that same institutional clout.

In addition, seven of those 17 Democrats have said they either are skipping the party's convention this summer or remain unsure of their intentions. One member has declined to endorse President Barack Obama's reelection campaign.

"[DCCC Chairman Steve Israel] is spending gargantuan amounts of money and energy on hopeless Blue Dogs ... [rather] than working on winnable campaigns for independent-minded, progressive Democrats," said Howie Klein, the co-founder of Blue America PAC, an organization devoted to promoting progressive candidates. "Those 17 Democrats didn't just suddenly join [Rep. Darrell] Issa's witch hunt and stray from the Democratic fold. All 17-- no exceptions-- are among the Democrats who vote with [Speaker John] Boehner and [House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor most frequently for the far right's anti-family agenda."

The vast majority of the support the DCCC offered these members (approximately 95 percent) came in the form of earmarked donations-- money that came from other groups and donors but was solicited by the campaign committee.

"What the DCCC is doing for those candidates is what Act Blue does for other Democrats," explained a prominent campaign finance lawyer who advises congressional candidates. "They are sending out an email saying, 'Here are our top 10 target races. Will you give money to those races?'"

Because the DCCC is thereby prioritizing those races, the lawyer continued, it is fair to categorize an earmarked donation as a form of support from the committee. It's "a conscious decision" to help that candidate.

The extent of that support is disproportionate to the help the DCCC is offering House members and candidates at large. During the same period that the committee funneled $1.3 million to those 17 anti-Holder lawmakers, it sent just over $9.1 million to all House Democratic candidates.

That breakdown may seem counterproductive-- why reward the party's least orthodox members?-- but for party strategists, it reflects a political reality. Those 17 members hail from some of the most closely contested districts in the country, meaning that they, more than their colleagues, need the support.

"The only way you're going to have Congress not bringing up Eric Holder contempt resolutions, [and] instead bringing up middle-class jobs bills, is to have the majority in Democratic control," said a Democratic Hill aide.

Not all of the 17 members received the same level of support:

* Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), who lost his primary bid for reelection, received $17,000-plus in contributions and earmarked donations.

* Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.), who is not attending the convention, received $13,000-plus.

* Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.), who is not seeking reelection in 2012, received just $1,000.

* Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa) received $90,200-plus.

* Rep. Ben Chandler (D-Ky.) received $60,000-plus.

* Rep. Mark Critz (D-Pa.), who defeated Altmire in the primary and has said he will not be attending the convention, received more than $300,000, much of it coming during his special election campaign to replace former Rep. John Murtha in 2010.

* Rep. Joseph Donnelly (D-Ind.), who is running for the Senate in Indiana, received $57,000-plus.

* Rep. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) received $54,000-plus, much of which came during her special election campaign to replace Rep. Chris Lee, who resigned.

* Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) received $26,200-plus. He is not attending the convention.

* Rep. Larry Kissell (D-N.C.) received more than $110,000. He voted against health care reform, has continued to advocate its repeal and recently said he was unsure about going to the convention.

* Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), who is not attending the convention, received $44,000.

* Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), who has declined to endorse Obama's reelection, received just shy of $60,000.

* Rep. Bill Owens (D-N.Y.), who won a special election in 2009 and will not be attending the Democratic convention, received more than $375,000.

* Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), who is also not attending the convention, received more than $10,000.

* Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) received $6,000.

* Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) received more than $65,000.

* The only member for whom there were no records of DCCC financial aid since 2009 is Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.).

Peterson doesn't need any help from the DCCC. He's one of the most corrupt Blue Dogs in Congress and takes huge amounts of money from AgriBusiness in return for letting them write all U.S. agricultural and food policies. Collin Peterson is literally killing this country. I could have helped Sam with his story with tidbits like this on every member he mentioned. In fact, when he asked me for the quote, I asked him if it could be 5 pages long.

Here's an interesting interactive map we need to look at together in a few days. He tells a lot of how Israel plans to make the DCCC into the BDCCC, the Blue Dog Congressional Campaign Committee. And if you get a plea for cash from some outfit called the House Majority PAC, that's the DCCC too. They just know how muddied their name is so they're trying to reach voters under another guise. The House Majority PAC, for example, financed ConservaDem Ron Barber's win in Arizona to the tune of around $700,000, only to smile when Barber voted to gut a package of crucial environmental laws, announced he won't commit to voting for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker and then voted to join Darrell Issa's witch hunt against Eric Holder. If you want to contribute to the DCCC, at least be aware what you're throwing your money away on. And if you'd like to support progressive Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt type Democrats, like David Gill and Patsy Keever, mentioned above, you can do it directly through ActBlue, where the DCCC doesn't rake off a cut for themselves.

Does Beltway "realism" have to mean political hopelessness? (These days it seems yeah, probably)

"You reap what you sow. Sell out the interests of your core supporters, and they can’t help you as much as they could if you helped them. When will Democratic politicians learn this lesson?"

-- Ian Welsh, in "Democrats Face $200 million Republican War Chest Without the Strong Allies They Should Have"

"This is the fundamental problem with the US. There is no accountability for the political class. They and those who take care of them have made sure of it. . . . And as long as there is no cost for them, they’ll keep doing it."

-- Ian Welsh, in "Of Course Politicians Don’t Listen to Ordinary Citizens. Why Would They?"

by Ken

A couple of weeks back -- around the same time we were marveling at Washington Monthly's in-breadth look at the inner as well as outer workings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- the above chart was making the rounds of the progressive blogosphere. It was compiled, Sam Stein reported on Huffpost, by "top Democratic Party strategists," and showed what are supposed to be actual commitments for 2010 GOP election financing, and as commanding a position as the U.S. Chamber occupies, the chart shows that its projected $75 million isn't much more than a third of the projected institutional right-wing commitment. And Sam added this chilling update:

A Democratic operative makes the case that the total could rise to roughly $300 million if it includes additional pledges for campaign spending from Americans for Prosperity, promising $45 million, the Club for Growth, $24 million, the National Rifle Association, $20 million, and the Susan B. Anthony List, $6 million.

In good part, of course, this reflects what is probably only the beginning of the opening of the floodgates which was all but mandated by the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United that this country is the rightful and exclusive property of the rich. Sam made it clear in his report that the professional Democratic class, contemplating these numbers, was more or less running around like chickens without heads, with the corporate spigots Democrats were tapping in the last couple of election cycles pretty much shut off.

The best-targeted response I saw was Ian Welsh's: "Democrats Face $200 million Republican War Chest Without the Strong Allies They Should Have." Looking at these numbers, Ian wondered, "So, how did this happen?" (For links, check out the original post at the above link.)

First, Democrats didn’t make an all out effort to torpedo either Roberts, or more reasonably, Alito. With both on the Supreme Court, decisions like Citizens United were inevitable.

Second, when given a historic opportunity to break the power of the rich and corporations by not bailing them out, Democrats bailed them out. They did not make shareholders get wiped out (as they deserved, they took the profits from housing bubble fraud, after all) and they did not let the bondholders take their losses. Be very clear, this was never about saving the economy, the trillions of dollars used to bail out these corporations could have been loaned directly to consumers and businesses which needed loans. In fact, at this point, it is entirely likely that bailouts made things worse, not better.

Third, Democrats did not push hard for the Employee Free Choice Act, an act which would have made union organizing much easier. Union members vote for Democrats at much higher rates than non Union members (in particular, white male union members are pro-Democrat while as a group white males who aren’t union members vote Republican). Unions not only provide financial resources for Democrats, they put feet on the ground for Democrats. Where unions are strong, Democrats tend to win. Where unions aren’t strong, Democrats tend to lose.

Fourth, Democrats abandoned their constituencies economically in order to bail out the financial sector. They seem to have thought the financial sector would be loyal. Of course, it isn’t, it will give money to whoever it thinks can win and from whom it’ll get the best deal. Meanwhile unmarried women, Hispanics, African Americans and Youth, all core Demoratic groups, have high unemployment rates. That means they are not motivated to vote or volunteer, they cannot give as much money as they could if they were doing well. The money spent on bailing out banks and the rich, could have been used for a proper stimulus and proper loans which would have helped these groups.

Fifth, Democrats let ACORN be destroyed. ACORN was framed, but Democrats threw it under the bus. ACORN was a community organization which did huge voter drives which registered voters who were overwhelmingly likely to vote Democratic. Again, a key liberal organization was simply abandoned.

Democrats made a play for corporate money and in so doing, they sold out constituencies which were actually loyal to them, and could actually be counted on. Wall Street will never be reliably loyal to Democrats, neither will the very rich. At best they will play Democrats and Republicans off against each other, but realistically, they prefer Republicans whenever Republicans can win.

You reap what you sow. Sell out the interests of your core supporters, and they can’t help you as much as they could if you helped them. When will Democratic politicians learn this lesson?

Democrats should have much stronger allies in 2010. But they preferred to play footsie with Wall Street and abandon their own constituencies.

Which ties right into another recent post of Ian's, "Of Course Politicians Don't Listen to Ordinary Citizens. Why Would They?," prompted by reports that "apparently 68% of Americans think that the political class doesn’t listen to them," which prompted him to wonder, "Why should the political class listen?"

They get the majority of their reelection funds from corporations and the rich. Their spouses and children are given good jobs by such donors, and if ordinary people do actually ever vote them out for not looking after their interests, well, as long as they went down doing what they were supposed to, they’ll still be very well taken care of.

Get elected, do what your corporate masters tell you to, and you’ll never ever have to worry about money ever again.

Only a sucker or an idealist would do anything else.

This is the fundamental problem with the US. There is no accountability for the political class. They and those who take care of them have made sure of it. Go to war with a nation which has never attacked the US based on a big lie propaganda campaign, or spy on millions of Americans, or torture, or deregulate the economy so that Wall Street can cash in and crash the economy, and hey, so what, there’s no cost for you.

And as long as there is no cost for them, they’ll keep doing it. Just like Wall Street, having been bailed out after crashing the world economy, will do it again. They got rich doing it, why wouldn’t they do it again.

They’d have to be suckers or idealists not to.

#

It's a shame there isn't a toilet big enough to flush Master Rahm down

One of these clowns is the president of the United States and one is his chief of staff. I'm not exactly sure which is which, but apparently it doesn't really matter.

"Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise. If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November."

-- "a senior White House official," who called

Politico's Ben Smith to deliver this message

"Another senior Democrat (who also would not be quoted by name) echoed the point in an exchange with the Huffington Post. 'Labor is humiliated,' the source said. '$10 million flushed down the toilet at a time when Democrats across the country are fighting for their lives, they look like absolute idiots.' "

-- from Sam Stein's Huffpost report, "Blanche Lincoln Win

Sparks Furious Sniping Between White House, Labor"

by Ken

Howie was just fulminating ("Obama Should Flush Jm Messina And Rahm Emanuel Down The Toilet") about the first quote above, the one from the "senior White House official who called Politico's Ben Smith to wage war on American labor, but I'm in uncontrollable-fulminating mood too.

First off, especially in light of Sam Stein's uncovering of yet "another senior Democrat" talking trash about labor, there's no longer any doubt in my mind that Doodyhead A is Master Rahm, leaving the role of Doodyhead B free for the other possibility Howie was considering, Jim Messina (Mini-Rahm?). If Doodyhead A isn't Master Rahm, it's only because for purposes of deniability he wrote the script for the Smith phone jihad and handed it off to an aide. Surely there can't be any question about whose sensibility and politics are being expressed.

(Technical note: This afternoon I have been unable to get the alleged permalink [see above] for the original Ben Smith blogpost reporting the White House official's call to work, and to access the post had to log onto our Ben's blog and scroll, scroll, scroll down. I'm not making an accusation here regarding this technical glitch, or even insinuating that there might be a reason for it. I'm just noting the fact.)

The thing about Master Rahm is only partly that he's a vicious, politically fraudulent demon, totally without principle and totally ruthless, although it would be nice if he would make clear that calling himself a "Democrat" says nothing about his political beliefs. The point I would stress in this connection is that as a political operative he's borderline incompetent -- not only flushing vast sums of money down the toilet for unelectable thug candidates, and vast sums of money for unfortunately electable ones.

He's incompetent as a political operative simply because his first priority is his own aggrandizement -- a good operative's job is to make the boss look good. And he's minimally competent as a majority-builder because so many of his congressional candidates were not only inferior to better ones he opposed, but so many deserving candidates could have made a serious showing with even minimal support, support he withheld because those are candidates who were too far to the left of the Bushist "center."

The Democratic congressional majorities happened much more in spite of than because of him, for the simple reason that he was less interested in a Democratic majority as such than in a docile, corporately controllable right-wing Democratic majority, the only significant difference being the initial, "R" or "D," on the T-shirts of the sleazoids who tap the way larger share of all that corporate cash flowing down.

And now, since I have heard no indication that the Master has either been fired or submitted his resignation in order to be able to spend time with his family (whether his family wants it or not), I am declaring officially that Master Rahm's politics are President Obama's politics. I have to admit that, as much as I've learned to loathe this hateful troll, I thought Howie was being overdramatic, or at least a bit premature, when he responded to the news that the president-elect wanted Rahm to be his chief of staff as the death knell for the Obama presidency. Now I think he was simply being prescient.

In response to my latest musings last night on whatever the hell it is that the president thinks he's doing, our friend Balakirev opined in a comment:

Ken, the way I figure it, he's either completely clueless, spineless, and will always be rolled from the right, or he's been a Conservadem all along who talks a good progressive game. And--quel surprise!- Obama's pre-presidential voting record shows he was one of the most conservative Dems in Congress. So "bipartisanship," in his lexicon, could well mean "I want to go corporatist on this issue, and will rig any attempt to do anything else by calling in people who think like me."

No doubt about Obama's Senate voting record, B. Howie was bitching about it back when the 2008 Democratic presidential field was forming -- that and the fact that Senator Obama considered Joe Lieberman his mentor. We should have all learned from that.

What still leaves me baffled, though, is how poor his performance has been as a ConservaDem. Unless -- and this really gets conspiratorial -- that this year and a half of constant screwing up and seeming ineptitude on the part of the Obama administration is how corporatists pursue their agenda with a Democrat in the White House and Democrats in control of both houses of Congress. You can't expect the guy to come out and actively support their agenda, but what if he just ensures that key parts slip through and as little as possible happens that materially compromises the entrenched interests of the status quo-ers.

Way, way back in the early months of the Obama administration (I'm sorry to say I don't recall which of the administration's startling pushbacks against, not just a progressive agenda, but anything that could conceivable construed as a left-of-Bush one, was at issue), one of the smartest people I know mentioned that he had taken to speculating about the possibility that it was a "Nixon in China" moment -- a position on whatever the issue was that was so far right that a declared right-winger couldn't have sold it, because everyone to his left would have denounced it and him, but that from Obama was being accepted with only incidental murmuring and grumbling.

I no longer feel any need or even impulse to explain away the president's behavior in making Master Rahm the linchpin of his administration. The fact is that he did.

Of course what's really funny in what is mostly an appalling response to the election results (and remember, it wasn't a momentary off-the-cuff indiscretion; he -- or a henchman -- called Ben with the express intention of planting these remarks in Politico) is how little this administration has done for labor. Does the Master really believe it's possible to do less?

Maybe he's thinking that he could unleash the demon spawn of the Confederacy, whose goal would be to abolish labor unions altogether. Could Master Rahm be taking credit for saving unions from that fate as something he's done for labor?

#