Another Sign A Wave Is About To Sweep Away Lots And Lots Of Trumpists-- Newspaper Endorsements

Newspaper editorial endorsements don't move elections-- but they can be a signal that a wave is coming. Yesterday we saw how conservative newspapers in Maine, Texas and Iowa had endorsed progressive Democrats, Jared Golden, Dayna Steele and J.D. Scholten, not despite their progressive policies, but because of them. The Houston Chronicle, in explaining why they had abandoned right-wing incumbent Brian Babin for Dayna, noted that they liked her New Deal appeal and that her main issue "is Medicare-for-all because too many people can’t afford the care they need, especially in the rural stretches and small towns of this district... She also wants a $15 per hour minimum wage, free community college and job training, expanded Internet availability for rural Texas and immigration laws that provide a path to citizenship. 'I believe government’s job is to make people’s lives better. Everything goes back to health care-- you can’t do anything if you’re not healthy,' she told us."

And then came the Orlando Sentinel which endorsed both Andrew Gillum and Bill Nelson Thursday. "It's time," they wrote in bold print, "to elect Andrew Gillum, an exciting young candidate poised to disrupt the GOP stranglehold on state policy and become an agent of compromise." Again, the reasons are not in the "despite of his platform" category but because of them.

Gillum, the Democratic mayor of Tallahassee, comes from a modest background. Mom was a bus driver. Dad was a construction worker.

Not surprising, then, that his platform is geared toward the middle class instead of catering to the wealthy. Increasing the minimum wage. Paying teachers a salary that better reflects their contributions to society. Ensuring that people aren’t denied health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition, like cancer.

He wants to expand Medicaid so more people can get access to health care. And he understands that immigrants are important contributors to Florida’s economy, not an invading force.

...The GOP’s “too radical” campaign against Gillum would more accurately apply to his Republican opponent, Ron DeSantis.

The most distinguishable feature of DeSantis’ five years in Congress was his servile devotion to the GOP’s far-right impulses.

He’s a reliable Trump vote, going along with the president 94 percent of the time, according to tracking by the website FiveThirtyEight.com. The website Govtrack.us, lists DeSantis as one of the most partisan members of the Florida delegation, keeping company with the fringy likes of Matt Gaetz.

Florida voters have another reason to vote for Gillum. A recent Florida Supreme Court ruling makes it increasingly likely that the next governor, not current Gov. Rick Scott, will appoint three justices to the court when their terms end. Gillum is the better choice for that task, especially considering he’ll choose from a list of names submitted by a nominating committee packed with conservative Scott appointees.

Given those circumstances, Florida is far more likely to end up with centrist judges under a Gillum administration.

Our state has operated under the GOP’s singular rule long enough. We’ve watched governors and legislators gut environmental and growth-management laws, turn the state into a petri dish for loopy gun laws, ignore the affordable-housing crisis and let the middle class struggle.

Time’s up. We recommend voting for Andrew Gillum, for a change.

There's not much good you can say about sleepy old Senator Bill Nelson in an endorsement. But there's a lot you can say about his crackpot right-wing opponent:

Behold, Floridians! Step right up and see the Sunshine State’s amazing, shape-shifting governor.

One moment Rick Scott is the mortal enemy of environmental regulation. Eight years later, he’s a champion of the environment.

One moment he’s the epitome of fiscal conservatism. Eight years later, the state’s budget is $89 billion, an increase of nearly 30 percent from when he took office.

One moment he’s signing bills making it illegal for pediatricians to ask patients if guns at home were locked safely away. The next he’s signing a sensible gun-safety law he could have backed-- but didn’t-- years before so many kids were massacred in Parkland.

One moment he’s besties with Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican presidential primary, choosing a New York real-estate tycoon over Florida sons-- and better candidates-- Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. The next he’s edging away from the mercurial president to help his chances at getting elected to the Senate.

This isn’t principle at work; it’s political calculation. Scott did what he needed to do to get elected as a Republican in the 2010 tea party wave. It worked. Now he’s creeping toward the center. Not because he’s a centrist, but because that’s his best bet against incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson.

...No, Nelson doesn’t make headlines. He’s not the go-to senator for the Sunday morning news shows.

Neither is he shady. Nor unethical. Nor opportunistic. Nor tribal.

He’s a decent person who has served Florida and his country well, both in the military and in politics.

Bill Nelson has earned another term in the U.S. Senate.

Much of their endorsement of worthless Blue Dog pile of crap, Stephanie Murphy, wouldn't have to change all that much for it to be a ritual DWT denunciation of her. "[S]he’s the most conservative Democrat in Florida’s congressional delegation... She votes with President Trump 50 percent of the time, demonstrating her capacity for bucking the party when necessary. Only six other Democrats in the House have voted with the president more often." Republicans are worse... right? Right?

Question: Is Randy Bryce Winning Yet? Answer: Yep

Enjoy Randy Bryce on I Love America with Sarah Silverman above. I don't know how many people in southeast Wisconsin watch that show. Or Chelsea Handler's show. Or Pod Save America with former Obama aides Jon Favreau, Dan Pfeiffer, Jon Lovett and Tommy Vietor. All those appearances seemed like a big deal for Randy Bryce after he released his well-received introductory video that caused such excitement among national progressives. I know all the other candidates backed by Blue America would like those opportunities... would love those opportunities. But I'm not sure how much name recognition all of that has given Bryce in WI-01. Everyone there knows Paul Ryan-- who was first elected in 1998 and is basically on TV, as Speaker of the House, every single day. His name recognition is 92% and Bryce's is 21%.

Fortunately for Bryce, though, all that Paul Ryan name recognition that has served him so well for so long, is turning sour-- very, very sour. I got my hands on an internal campaign poll of WI-01 voters-- 30% Democrats, 31% Republicans and 39% independents), conducted by the Global Strategy Group. The bottom line is good: Bryce and Ryan are very close when the "if the election were held today" question is asked-- 46% Ryan/40% Bryce-- in the district and when a positive line is read about each one of them, Randy then goes on to beat Ryan-- 48% to 41%. [Please consider tapping on the ActBlue Stop Paul Ryan thermometer on the right and contributing what you can to help drive up Randy's name recognition.] These were the two statements read by the pollsters:

1- "Paul Ryan is a Republican and fifth-generation Wisconsin native who serves as Speaker of the House of Representatives. A committed conservative and public servant, Ryan has spent his life advocating for real solutions that will expand opportunity for all Americans."

2- "Randy Bryce is a US Army veteran, cancer survivor, and ironworker from Caledonia. He joined the race for Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District because he’s frustrated with DC politicians who continue to put politics and party over people and wants to put the priorities of hardworking Americans first."

The poll shows that Ryan's favorability has dropped from 50% to 46% since August. His unfavorability has grown from 41% in August to 47%. Bryce, still basically little known, saw his favorability grow from 7% to 15% and his unfavorabilty grow from 3% to 6%. Voters still don't know who he is, although his name recognition has grown from 10% in August to 21% today, without running an ads on TV or radio. That should be changing early next year... after over a million and a half dollars in small donations to his campaign.

A little context from the poll: Trump's net approval/disapproval has gone from 42%/52% in August to 42%/53% today. And Ryan's own approval has fallen from 52% to 47%. Meanwhile, his disapproval has grown from 42% to 46%.

Then poll respondents were asked if each of these terms was a good description of Paul Ryan. The number next to each represents what percentage of voters agreed it was a good description of their incumbent congressman:

• Is part of the problem in Washington DC- 57%
• Focused on helping millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations- 62%
• Too close to campaign donors and Washington special interests- 57%
• Out of touch- 54%
• Has changed for the worse during his time in office- 54%
• Focused on helping the middle class and working people- 49%
• Cares about people like you- 51%
• Focused on constituents in Southeastern Wisconsin- 48%

Why Sarah Silverman Is A Comedian-- Guest Post By Sam Husseini

In remarks from the Democratic National Convention stage applauded by big media, Sarah Silverman lauded the Democratic Party primary process as "exemplary."

I guess that's why she's a comedian.

Perhaps she doesn't know who Debbie Wasserman Schultz is. Perhaps she doesn't know that Schultz just resigned as head of the Democratic National Committee after the release by WikiLeaks of DNC internal emails showing evidence of them conspiring against Sanders. Of course, Schultz was then immediately named "honorary chair" of the Clinton own campaign. Schultz as "honorary" anything-- now that's funny.

Hey Sarah, check this out: "DNC Staffers Mocked the Bernie Sanders Campaign, Leaked Emails Show." Julian Assange accused the Democratic National Committee of “naked conspiracies" against Bernie Sanders.

Still, Silverman insisted: "This Democratic primary was exemplary. No name calling ... that stuff is for third graders."

Yes, name calling is for third graders. Which I guess is why she then blurted out "Can I just say, to the Bernie or Bust people, you’re being ridiculous."

Wow, there's a well-reasoned argument. "You're being ridiculous."

I have mixed feelings about people shouting in a hall, but what was really ridiculous was that as I flipped from network to network, none seems to want to tell me what it was the delegates were chanting. After poking around my twitter feed, here's some of what they were apparently saying-- more substantial than the speeches from the podium:

"Tax Wall Street!" and "Release the transcripts!" and "99 percent!" and, as it was claimed that Clinton would be tough on Wall Street: "Goldman Sachs! Goldman Sachs!" and "We trusted you! We trusted you!" (to Elizebeth Warren) and apparently, at one point, they referred to the DNC scandal-- "Wikileaks! Wikileaks! Wikileaks!" When Bernie Sanders talked about Hillary Clinton on crime, some shouted "super predators!"

But who wants to hear what delegates think when we have Sarah Silverman making STD jokes about "feel the burn"?

Not that activists shouldn't be questioned. I've had my own criticisms of #BernieOrBust for some time. Some of them have made a cult out of an obviously flawed man, who it's been apparent for weeks if not months would not get the nomination. Backing Sanders should be a tactic, not the goal. His supporters now should use the VotePact.org voting strategy-- see in my piece "#BernieAndBoom." This would mean disenchanted Democrats and disenchanted Republicans who know and trust each other pairing up and vote for the independent candidates of their choice, like the Green or Libertarian candidates. Methodical action is the order of the day in the coming weeks, months and years.

And I don't mean to be too hard on Silverman. After all, I don't think her performance with Al Franken was quite the unintentionally funniest bit on Monday night.

I thought it was hilarious when Elizabeth Warren tried to paint Clinton as someone who would stand up to Wall Street. And I thought it was unintentionally uproariously funny when the much touted "first Muslim" member of Congress, Keith Ellison, introduced Sanders without a mention of perpetual U.S. wars-- which have killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims over the last several decades. Seeing the king of rhetoric, Bill Clinton applauding speakers like some kind of phony wise man was sickeningly priceless. And there was comedic irony in Cory Booker's endless empty platitudes about "courage" and such as grassroots activists showed some degree of actual courage-- struggling to find a way to be heard in a rigged system.

Silverman also said: "My shrink says we don’t get what we want, we get what we think we deserve." So, maybe that's what she thinks she deserves: a corporate, militaristic candidate serving the interests of the elite-- of which Silverman is a member at this point.

 

The sign many were waving last night-- "love trumps hate" -- was way off. Clinton-- "we came, we saw, he died" (about Qaddafi)-- is the candidate of love? Really? The Clinton message is actually "fear trumps Trump." Even as speaker after speaker at the DNC attacked Trump for instilling fear (true enough), their own go-to message was: Back Hillary because the Donald should arouse such fear in you that all other thought processes should immediately shut down.

So it took extra chutzpah, and comedic gold, for Silverman to saying that "I will vote for Hillary with gusto"-- showing for all to see her extraordinary delusion.

This is a world view in which substance, debate and democracy must be avoided. The New York Times headlined a piece "Sarah Silverman tames the Bernie beast"-- echoing the now fashionable founding money man of the one percent Alexander Hamilton's derision of the general public: "Your people, sir-- your people is a great beast!”

Appropriately, just as Sanders ended his own sad speech, which induced tears of grief among his perhaps naive delegates, the choreographers of the evening's festivities chimed in a riff from "Taking it to the Street"-- perhaps they didn't think to look at the rest of the lyrics of the song:

You, telling me the things you're gonna do for me
I ain't blind and I don't like what I think I see

Quite appropriate for an evening of promises on behalf of the corporate candidate of perpetual wars who has just again reiterated her actual big money allegiance with her vice presidential pick-- to the delight of a stage managed, big media driven system appalled by the threat of accountability and democracy actually breaking out.

Hillary Ideas vs Bernie Ideas

It's not always the easiest thing to assign motivation to a politician for their votes, although it helps when they're consistent and when they tell their constituents why. Otherwise you have to guess a lot of the time. Earlier today we were looking at the one Democrat-- Minnesota Blue Dog Collin Peterson-- who voted with the Republicans to take health insurance away from 11 million people under the Affordable Care Act and to defund Planned Parenthood-- and the 7 Republicans who voted with the Democrats against the bill. Peterson is an anti-Choice fanatic and in an electorally vulnerable position in an R+6 district where Obama only got 44% of the vote last year. Not that hard to figure out. With the Republicans it was more difficult. Richard Hanna is one of the only pro-Choice Republicans left. Bob Dold is in a pro-Choice district and in a fight for his life. Walter Jones is a libertarian and his votes are unpredictable-- although he's very much anti-Choice-- but in this particular instance he's in a tough reelection primary battle against Taylor Griffin who ran against him last year and held him down to a narrow 2,500 vote victory (50.9%). Meanwhile 4 of the most extreme right-wing fanatics-- Ken Buck (CO), Matt Salmon (AZ), Mark Walker (NC) and Mark Meadows (NC)-- voted NO. Why? The bill didn't go far enough for them. Everyone has their own reason for voting the way they did and some of the reasons were antithetical to each other.

Progressives have been excited and happy each time Hillary Clinton has taken even a tepid little step towards the kinds of policies that differentiate "real" Democrats (liberals, progressives) from corporate Democrats. Heavily funded by corporate interests and Wall Street and overly cautious not to appear "too liberal," it's been celebrated in certain left-leaningish circles when she backed a little raise in the minimum wage and a so-so plan to help working class kids with higher education costs and when she finally came out against building the Keystone Pipeline and did a 180 on her opposition to marriage equality and when she finally said she would stop taking campaign cash from the private prison industry. She even put out a report about regulating Wall Street a little tiny bit. All these things are pale imitations of the real thing that is on offer from Bernie (and from Elizabeth Warren), neither of whom is taking policy positions based on focus groups, polling data or the exigencies of an electoral campaign.

Did it surprise anyone today when David Plouffe, Obama's former campaign manager, endorsed Hillary? See that meme up top? I'd much rather Hillary not take campaign cash from the private prison industry, as she's now announced she no longer will... but I'd be even happier if she knew it was a terrible thing to do and never did it in the first place. In his HuffPo piece about where the 2016 candidates get their campaign money, Paul Blumenthal makes the case that Hillary-- just like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie-- is being financed by wealthy elites with special interests, while Bernie, as well as Ben Carson, have campaigns being supported by immense numbers of small donors.

The fundraising difference among the Democratic candidates-- or at least between the top two candidates-- looks even more dramatic [than the difference among the Republicans]. Clinton has raised large sums from donors giving $2,700 or more, while Sanders has pulled in strikingly little from max-out contributors.

Sanders received almost all of his money from small donors, including those giving more than $200. Out of his $26 million third-quarter haul, just $305,734 came from donors giving $2,700 or more. Small donors giving less than $200 combined to contribute $20 million, or 77 percent of his total, which is the highest percentage of any of the 17 candidates examined.

Clinton raised $16 million from max-out donors, or 53 percent of her total. Unlike the Republicans who leaned most heavily on big donors, the former secretary of state received significant sums from small donors as well. Her campaign pulled in $5.2 million from donors giving under $200. She has also cultivated a base of repeat donors making numerous small donations.

And then when it comes to SuperPACs, there's another $20,291,679 that's ready to be deployed on her behalf, $15,654,458 of which comes from Priorities USA. $3,100,000 of that comes right from Wall Street and another $750,000 from drug companies. Him Saban, Israel's chief Democratic lobbyist-- the way Adelson is Israel's chief GOP lobbyist-- has already given then $2,000,000. Her second biggest SuperPAC, ReadyPAC, has raised $3,180,593 and over $400,000 has come from Wall Street. And what about Bernie? He doesn't have a SuperPAC. Something call the Collective Actions PAC is raising money to use to help him, but so far they've only raised $8,795, all from small donors.

If reforming Wall Street and cutting back on the influence of plutocrats in our political system are priorities for you, Hillary is... better than a Republican. But, very much not part of the Elizabeth Warren-Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. If reforming Wall Street and cutting back on the influence of plutocrats in our political system are priorities for you, click on this link go directly to Bernie's ActBlue page. Today, Sarah Silverman told the L.A. Times that "Bernie is the only politician not for sale. Look, I love Hillary too, but Goldman-Sachs owns her. She might as well be wearing race car driver [logos]... Everybody’s for sale, and here’s this guy who’s been a senator for a million years from Vermont who is just simply not for sale."

Yesterday, Bernie's campaign sent a note to his supporters that asserted that "a presidential campaign should be about the issues. Bernie's been right on the issues, early and often." And these pictures came too:

Jon Stewart reports on right-wing "Chaos on Bullshit Mountain" -- and Sarah Silverman's seen the mountaintop too

Sarah S, exploring the brave new world of voter-ID
laws, sez: "Look, you want fair, move to Canada!"

"No Photo No Voto": "How 'bout this bullshit? Some students, like in Tennessee, because of the new voter-identification laws will not be able to use their student IDs to vote, but -- and this is amazing -- gun owners can use their firearms permits as ID to vote! It makes perfect sense: Get these kids gun permits! Uh, I feel safer from voter fraud already!" Sarah's arming her nana too! (See www.LetMyPeopleVote2012.com.)

by Ken

Our friend Jack passed along this amazing Sarah Silverman video. It's side-splitting hilarious, but on language grounds I endorse his caution: If you're watching at work, or at a public computer in a libary, be sure to use headphones!

I'm not much of a clip-watcher, so it takes a lot to get me to watch one -- and that much more to get me to pass one along. I must have been presoftened by Sarah S's amazing voter-ID clip when I opened the e-mail from DailyKos's Chris Bowers passing on this message originally posted by Barbara Morrill in "Fox News is about to erupt":

In case you missed it, Wednesday night on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart delivered what may be the best 10 minutes and 27 seconds you'll see on TV this entire campaign season. Stop what you're doing and watch it now!

For once, I did as I was told: I stopped what I was doing and watched it now! And am I ever glad I did. And if you haven't seen Jon's report on "Chaos on Bullshit Mountain," I think you'll be glad too.

I do have a caution here as well, though: If you watch, you're going to subject yourself to a parade of mental defectives and hooligans who may collectively call into question your will to go on -- I mean, in a world where all these degenerates freely spew their imbecilic, often psychotic lies and gullible viewers engullify them, what, really, is the point?

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3


Video-clip note: I've already had trouble with the Daily Show clips, which sometimes worked fine and sometimes, well, just kind of disappeared. In case of emergency, use the DailyKos link.

#

Are Sheldon Adelson's Donations To Romney And The GOP A Ploy to Buy His Way Out of Jail?

-by James Guill

You may have read that casino gambling revenues on the Las Vegas strip were down 18.15% in May and thought that could possibly slow down Mitt Romney's (and the Republican Party's) top source of funds, organized crime figure Sheldon Adelson. But it won't. Adelson's billions come primarily from gambling, prostitution and other rackets from his Chinese Golden Bamboozle empire.

Last month it was reported that multi-billionaire Adelson and his Israeli wife gave $10 million to Mitt Romney's Super Pac in an effort to defeat Barack Obama in the upcoming November elections, followed by another $10 million to the Koch brothers' Dark Money fund to do the same thing. Adelson is said to be willing to spend whatever it takes to defeat the President, but one has to wonder whether Adelson is more concerned over our country's future or keeping himself out of jail and his poker rooms raking in profits.

It is no secret that Adelson has ties to the Chinese Mob, something that was highlighted by many news sources after Adelson donated millions to Newt Gingrich's failed presidential run. However, Adelson is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission and it makes one wonder whether his donations are purposed to pay his way out of these investigations.

The SEC is currently investigating whether Adelson's company have violated compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Some of the thing's being investigated includes the relationship between the Sands Macau and a Hong Kong crime boss. In addition, there have been accusations that the Sands Macau have put a public official on its payroll. This would be an illegal conflict of interest under United States Law.

A former executive with the Sands Macau is also cooperating with the Department of Justice and has event filed a civil suit against the company claiming that Adelson had told him to stay quiet over their involvement with Chinese organized crime syndicates. A Sands Macau poker dealer had his arms and legs broken a couple of years back, supposedly on the orders of the crime boss the Sands Macau is accused of associating
with.

At present, both investigations are in the evidence collection stage and there are no "formal charges" filed against Adelson. However, one has to wonder whether a change in the administration to one that was financially supported by Adelson will make said charges vanish. After all, when Paul Krugman asked in the NY Times Thursday Who's Very Important he was certainly talking about the same kind of trash as Adelson, if not Adelson himself.

“Is there a V.I.P. entrance? We are V.I.P.” That remark, by a donor waiting to get in to one of Mitt Romney’s recent fund-raisers in the Hamptons, pretty much sums up the attitude of America’s wealthy elite. Mr. Romney’s base-- never mind the top 1 percent, we’re talking about the top 0.01 percent or higher-- is composed of very self-important people.

Specifically, these are people who believe that they are, as another Romney donor put it, “the engine of the economy”; they should be cherished, and the taxes they pay, which are already at an 80-year low, should be cut even further. Unfortunately, said yet another donor, the “common person”-- for example, the “nails ladies”-- just doesn’t get it.

O.K., it’s easy to mock these people, but the joke’s really on us. For the “we are V.I.P.” crowd has fully captured the modern Republican Party, to such an extent that leading Republicans consider Mr. Romney’s apparent use of multimillion-dollar offshore accounts to dodge federal taxes not just acceptable but praiseworthy: “It’s really American to avoid paying taxes, legally,” declared Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. And there is, of course, a good chance that Republicans will control both Congress and the White House next year.

If that happens, we’ll see a sharp turn toward economic policies based on the proposition that we need to be especially solicitous toward the superrich-- I’m sorry, I mean the “job creators.” So it’s important to understand why that’s wrong.

The first thing you need to know is that America wasn’t always like this. When John F. Kennedy was elected president, the top 0.01 percent was only about a quarter as rich compared with the typical family as it is now-- and members of that class paid much higher taxes than they do today. Yet somehow we managed to have a dynamic, innovative economy that was the envy of the world. The superrich may imagine that their wealth makes the world go round, but history says otherwise.

To this historical observation we should add another note: quite a few of today’s superrich, Mr. Romney included, make or made their money in the financial sector, buying and selling assets rather than building businesses in the old-fashioned sense. Indeed, the soaring share of the wealthy in national income went hand in hand with the explosive growth of Wall Street.

Not long ago, we were told that all this wheeling and dealing was good for everyone, that it was making the economy both more efficient and more stable. Instead, it turned out that modern finance was laying the foundation for a severe economic crisis whose fallout continues to afflict millions of Americans, and that taxpayers had to bail out many of those supposedly brilliant bankers to prevent an even worse crisis. So at least some members of the top 0.01 percent are best viewed as job destroyers rather than job creators.

Did I mention that those bailed-out bankers are now overwhelmingly backing Mr. Romney, who promises to reverse the mild financial reforms introduced after the crisis?
To be sure, many and probably most of the rich do, in fact, contribute positively to the economy. However, they also receive large monetary rewards. Yet somehow $20 million-plus in annual income isn’t enough. They want to be revered, too, and given special treatment in the form of low taxes. And that is more than they deserve. After all, the “common person” also makes a positive contribution to the economy. Why single out the rich for extra praise and perks?

What about the argument that we must keep taxes on the rich low lest we remove their incentive to create wealth? The answer is that we have a lot of historical evidence, going all the way back to the 1920s, on the effects of tax increases on the rich, and none of it supports the view that the kinds of tax-rate changes for the rich currently on the table-- President Obama’s proposal for a modest rise, Mr. Romney’s call for further cuts-- would have any major effect on incentives. Remember when all the usual suspects claimed that the economy would crash when Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993?

Furthermore, if you’re really concerned about the incentive effects of public policy, you should be focused not on the rich but on workers making $20,000 to $30,000 a year, who are often penalized for any gain in income because they end up losing means-tested benefits like Medicaid and food stamps. I’ll have more to say about that in another column. By the way, in 2010, the average annual wage of manicurists-- “nails ladies,” in Romney-donor speak-- was $21,760.

So, are the very rich V.I.P.? No, they aren’t-- at least no more so than other working Americans. And the “common person” will be hurt, not helped, if we end up with government of the 0.01 percent, by the 0.01 percent, for the 0.01 percent.

The Other Sarah: Florida Jews Shouldn't Screw Up America... Again

I'm on the last few pages of Rep. Robert Wexler's book, Fire-Breathing Liberal and towards the end he explains how the Bush campaign stole the 2000 election-- in his south Florida district. There were a lot of confused, elderly Jewish people who, accidentally saddled the country with eight years of George Bush. Perversely some of them seem to be determined to give us four more years of the same-- mostly in Wexler's district, although he himself was an early and committed Obama supporter. So is Sarah Silverman, who explains how you-- in New York, L.A., Chicago, Philly, Houston, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas-- can make sure it doesn't happen again: Please watch:


The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.