George Washington Forum: Thomas C. Leonard- ‘Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics and American Economics in the Progressive Era’

Source:George Washington Forum– Professor Thomas Leonard, giving a lecture about race in the Progressive Era.

“Thomas C. Leonard is Research Scholar in the Council of the Humanities at Princeton University and Lecturer in the Department of Economics, which has twice awarded him the Richard D. Quandt Prize for outstanding teaching. His book, Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics and American Economics in the Progressive Era (2016), won the 2017 Joseph J. Spengler Best Book Prize from the History of Economics Society. This event receives support from the Jack Miller Center through a grant from the Thomas W. Smith Foundation.”

From the George Washington Forum

As a Liberal as an American, but more importantly as a person and I would hope that all people feel this way, but unfortunately thats not the case, I believe all forms of racism is bad. No matter who’s it directed at and what race. Just as there’s no such thing as a good from of slavery or evil, there’s no such thing as a good form of racism.

As someone who’s a proud product of a very diverse high school (Bethesda Chevy Chase) where literally the whole world is represented there and still is and someone who went to diverse schools my whole educational career and who met and experienced people of different races growing up, including befriending them and still knowing some of these friends today, I got to know people of different ethnicity’s and races early on. And learned on my own that they are just people, you know who happened to look different then from people of my ethnicity and race. And then once you establish that, you learn that they are people and you can treat as such and not differently.

As opposed to someone who grew up in a segregated area and didn’t meet and was unaware of people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds growing up. Perhaps grows up with parents and grandparents with bigoted attitudes growing up. And once they finally are around different people, perhaps in college or when they are working. Don’t know how to act around them.

Now I’ll admit as a Caucasian-American man my experience at feeling racism towards me is pretty limited, mostly in the form of humor. And most of that bad humor has been directed at my German heritage. So mostly about my ethnicity not race. And a lot of those jokes have been German ethnic stereotypes. Still bad but not things like ethnic slurs.

Racism is bad, whether its coming from the Far-Right or Far-Left and whatever race its directed at. Conservatives get accused of racism especially towards minorities all the time. But they don’t own a monopoly on it, even though it clearly exists and has been well documented.

But racism also comes from the Far-Left and a lot of times in the form of humor. Directed at Caucasians, jews and in some cases Asians. And generally directed at men and I believe even though they would describe it as being race conscience.

The Far-Left in America also tend to be more likely I believe, to identify ones race in describing someone. Instead of their hair color or outfit, physical build, etc.

To me any Dr. Martin Luther King who I consider the Leader and hero of the civil rights movement and with his I have a Dream Speech of 1963 laid down the vision of civil rights and equal rights, because of the famous and most important line,:”I have a dream that one day my children would be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.”

MLK’s “I Have a Dream” is the  most important thing ever said in the civil rights movement, because that laid down the vision of what that movement was all about: that all Americans would be treated by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. That all racism was evil and needs to be defeated.

All racism is bad and should be treated for the evil that it is. If all people just remember the MLK I have a Dream Speech and just treat people as people, judge them by their character and not race or ethnicity, then Dr King’s dream will become a reality and America will live up to what it represents as a land of equal opportunity for all not for a special few.

I can’t think of anything more regressive and illiberal than racism, regardless of who it’s targeted at and who is doing the targeting. And real Progressive or Liberal (and progressive and liberal doesn’t mean the same thing) hates racism and bigotry regardless of who it’s targeted at. Just because someone calls themself a Progressive or Liberal, doesn’t automatically make that person a Progressive or Liberal. You have to live up to progressive values to be a Progressive and liberal values to be a Liberal, like racial and ethnic tolerance, not bigotry.

Read Full Post »

C-SPAN: Christopher Hitchens: On Bill Clinton (1993)

Source:C-SPAN– British-American Socialist writer Christopher Hitchens, on C-SPAN in 1993.

Source:The New Democrat

“Christopher Hitchens Interview For the Sake of Argument”

From Hitch Archive

“Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Buchanan spoke on current events in Washington politics, including the performance of the Clinton administration to date, and the reaction of Western countries toward the civil war in Bosnia. The correspondents responded to callers’ comments criticizing the Clinton administration. Credit to C-SPAN.”

Source:C-SPAN– Left-Wing political writer Christopher Hitchens, on CSPAN in 1993.

From C-SPAN

“Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Buchanan spoke on current events in Washington politics, including the performance of the Clinton administration to date, and the reaction of Western countries toward the civil war in Bosnia. The correspondents responded to callers’ comments criticizing the Clinton administration.”

Source:C-SPAN– Pat Buchanan and Chris Hitchens on CSPAN, in 1993.

From C-SPAN

This is certainly an interesting combo to have Chris Hitchens and Pat Buchanan, on the same show.

Hitchens, a self-described Democratic Socialist and Pat Buchanan, would be what’s called today an Alt-Rightist: someone who tends to be against free trade, multiculturalism, non-European immigration and perhaps immigration in general. Anti-internationalism when it comes to foreign policy and not believing that America should be involved in other countries human rights crisis’s and civil wars.

And then you have Socialist Chris Hitchens, who believes that the big central government, should decide what people need to live well. And that the central government should be responsible for a lot of those services. But tends to break away from Socialists when it came to foreign policy and did believe America and Europe, could play a positive role in seeing that people who live under authoritarian regimes, can break away from authoritarianism and even use military force to break those authoritarian regimes.

Hitchens was in favor of America and Europe, being involved in the Balkans in the 1990s. Buchanan was against that. They weren’t two men that even though one was clearly on the Left, Far-Left even and the other was on the Far-Right, that you could assume that either would automatically take a certain position on a certain issue.

Read Full Post »

Caleb Rojas Castillo: Hillary Clinton on Good Morning America, 1998

Source:Caleb Rojas Castillo– U.S. First Lady Hillary R. Clinton, on ABC’s Good Morning America, in 1998.

Source:The New Democrat 

“First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton gives an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America”, facing tough personal questions.

January 28, 1998. (A day after the famous “Today show” interview)”

From Caleb Rojas Castillo

Lisa McRee, hosting ABC’s Good Morning America. Gee, there’s a blast from the past. She co-hosted that show, what two weeks. I guess when your network’s overnight newscast gets better ratings than your morning show, that’s a clue that you might need to change your morning crew. Diane Sawyer, saved Good Morning America and perhaps is the reason why that show is a strong competitor with The Today Show. Or at least while Diane was hosting GMA.

Hillary Clinton, is either the most gullible person on the planet: and would take the word of a known compulsive liar, when the liar says that fire is cold and water is dry and it snows in South Florida in July, or she’s just a bad liar herself. I mean, to say she believed her husband, who just happens to be Bill Clinton, perhaps better known as Wild Bill and Slick Willy, when he told her that allegations about Monica Lewinsky were false, is hard to believe. I mean, Bill is her husband and it’s not like they have a long distance marriage and do not know what is going on in the other’s life. They’ve shared a bed at this point for over twenty years. Well, they shared that bed when Bill wasn’t with one of his girlfriends.

When you’re a fly in hot water and you can actually swim, I know a little tough to consider, you get yourself out of the water and fly away. That is what Hillary is trying to do here. Lisa McRee, wants to talk about Lewinsky. Hillary, would rather talking about the color of a brick wall, or how often someone should clean their garbage cans. Or how come the Chicago Cubs, haven’t won a World Series in a hundred years, or the price of Arkansas dirt, then talk about her husband’s latest affairs. So of course she’s going to try to change the subject from Lewinsky and try to talk about her husband’s political agenda. Outside of saving his ass in the White House. And that is exactly what she tried to do here.

Read Full Post »

Politics & Prose: Al From- ‘The New Democrats and The Return to Power’

Source:Politics and Prose– Democratic strategist Al From, talking about his book about the New Democrats, at Politics & Prose in Washington.

Source:The New Democrat 

“From founded the Democratic Leadership Council in 1984. In the twenty-five years he served as its CEO, he achieved his goal of bringing the Democratic Party back to power. In this political memoir he recounts the development of the centrist philosophy that continues to be instrumental to the Democrats’ success.”

From Politics and Prose

“Al From discussing his book “The New Democrats and the Return to Power” at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics on 9/8/2014.”

Source:CSPAN– Democratic strategist Al From talking about his book about the New Democrats.

From CSPAN

I’m a Liberal Democrat and a New Democrat and yes those are the same things. Except I might be more liberal than New Democrats today on some social issues, especially civil liberties. Especially since 9/11 where I believe we can’t have security without liberty. That they need each other and New Democrats today since 9/11 tend to side more on security than liberty. Hillary Clinton would be a perfect example of that. But the New Democrats are the Liberals and Progressives in the Democratic Party and I’m going to explain that.

The New Democratic philosophy is not Republican light or sounding more progressive or socialist. And moving past the New Deal and Great Society and creating a real welfare state in America. But is about building off the principles of the Founding Fathers in America. And that individual liberty is for everyone. And not just European-American men, but the entire country regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, family income. And using government to expand freedom and not government dependence.
The New Democratic philosophy is about individual liberty for everyone. It is not anti-government and having a government so small that it can’t help people in need. And let the market take care of the rest.

Or a pro-big-government philosophy and using government to take care of everyone. But empowering everyone in need to be able to take care of themselves. And this blog covers a lot of different issues about what exactly that means. But New Democrats aren’t Social Democrats on the far-left or moderate Conservatives on the center-right.
The New Democratic philosophy saved the Democratic Party and represents exactly how Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992. Because pre-1992 Democrats were seen as European Social Democrats who wanted to center most of the power in the country with a big government in Washington to take care of everyone.

They were called Liberal Democrats even though the Democrats in charge who had most of the power in the Democratic Party were Social Democrats on the far-left and mainstream FDR New Deal Progressives. But they weren’t Liberals at least on economic policy and national security.
By the time Bill Clinton left the White House in early 2001, Democrats were now clearly beating Republicans on most of the economic issues. By the time George W. Bush left the White House in early 2001, Democrats were now even beating Republicans on fiscal responsibility and the Federal budget. That is the legacy of the New Democratic Coalition that it saved the Democratic Party. And made them a governing party again

Read Full Post »

The Film Archives-C-SPAN: 1997 White House Correspondents Dinner Featuring President Bill Clinton and Comedian Job Stewart

 

Source:The Film Archives– comedian and political satirist Jon Stewart.

“Bill Clinton & Jon Stewart: Stand-Up Comedy – White House Correspondents’ Dinner (1997) Although best known for his work on The Daily Show, Stewart has had roles in several films and television series. More Jon Stewart…

From The Film Archives

President Bill Clinton was the Comedian in Chief. Because, For one he has a great sense of humor and has always had that and if you live the life he has, the life of riding a roller coaster full-time. Having to stop to vomit because of all of those rides and going from being up one second to falling flat on your face (the clean version) the next second, you would have to have a great sense of humor and be able to make fun of yourself to keep your sanity.

But President Clinton was also Comedian in Chief because of the time he was president. Running and getting elected President of the United States at the birth of the internet. Email and websites already up by 1992 and of course those things having not been fully developed. Like they were in the mid and late 1990s, but they were already there. Cell phones already around by 1992 and the phones you saw then look like the phones you saw by 1995 when cell phones became popular and cool and almost universal.

The twenty-four hour news cycle was big by the early 1990s and just got bigger during the Clinton Administration. With cable news plus the internet to go along with television and radio news along with print media. With these news organizations being addicted to the twenty-four hour news cycle. Having to be the first to report on a story that five people care about. Otherwise it could cost them a tenth of one rating point, or an entire newspaper or magazine subscription.

President Clinton was also Comedian in Chief because of his hate squad, I mean opposition. Who actually turned out to be his best friends who saved him from himself. Because the American people had already decided they liked President Clinton and the job he was doing. And already accepted his flaws and decided they really didn’t like his opposition. Especially since these overly moral and extremely perfect people just also happened to be guilty of the same things that they were accusing President Clinton of. House Speaker Newt Gingrich comes to mind in a hot second. Who needs friends when you have enemies like this?

Once you become President of the United States, the number one sacrifice you give up and sacrifice is your privacy. The whole world is going to know about the same mistakes you and they make. Like having affairs when you are married with a daughter to a women half your age. Or raising money from other countries and you also have to know that your best friends, I mean opposition is going to accuse you of making the same mistakes and doing the same things they’ve done which is just the price of high power.

Read Full Post »

Politico: Kenneth Vogel & Tarini Parti- ‘The Existential Crisis of the Liberal Millionaire’

Source:POLITICO– I guess David Brock is one of the wealthy leftists.

Source:The New Democrat 

“David Brock has a message for liberal millionaires: Don’t sweat being called hypocrites.

Brock, a former “right-wing hit-man”- turned -top-big-money-Democratic- operative, is part of a behind-the-scenes campaign to convince donors it’s OK to attack the Koch brothers for spending millions of dollars while doing the exact same thing for the left.

“You’re not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids, and neither am I,” Brock told donors this month at a conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, according to someone who attended the conference, but who declined to be identified because it was closed to the press.”

From POLITICO

Just so we are clear that Liberals and Democrats (and I mean real Liberal Democrats) aren’t against millionaires and wealth: How I know that because the Democratic Party if anything may have more wealthy millionaire individual donors than the Republican Party. It was Barack Obama who had the most contributions from Wall Street in 2012. Not Mitt Romney. (In case anyone wasn’t familiar with that) Wall Street doesn’t back incumbents and candidates they believe are against them, or trying to put them out of business, or being wealthy.

There are plenty of Liberal Democrats who are multi-millionaires and if anything worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Hollywood is a perfect example of that and Democrats always get more contributions from Hollywood than Republicans. And the Hollywood types who are all in favor of being economically successful and being wealthy. But tend to be very liberal if not libertarian on the social issues. As well as tend to like liberal economic policies as it relates to education and infrastructure investment.

And these liberal donors back Democrats that they like who tend not to be on the Far-Left. They back center-left Progressive Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry in 2004. And are very friendly with the Bill Clinton’s in the Democratic Party.

So when you hear things that “Liberal Democrats are against wealth and being rich”, you should look at the Democratic donor list and where Democratic politicians get their political contributions. You’ll see a lot of union contributions, but you’ll also see a lot of contributions from very wealthy Liberals as well.

Read Full Post »

The Zero Hour With RJ Eskow: Richard Trumka- ‘On Labor in the 21st Century’

Source:The Zero Hour With RJ Eskow– AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

“Richard Trumka on Labor in the 21st Century (Full Interview)”

From The Zero Hour With RJ Eskow

If you look at the American labor movement (their leadership, at least) today, it more resembles the politics especially on economic policy, of the British Labour Party, or the Canadian Democratic Party, that I call social democratic party’s, or the German Socialist Democratic Party, more than the politics of the American Democratic Party.

Organized labor in America, at least at their leadership level, tends to be in favor of democratic socialism and expanding democratic socialism in America. Like single-payer health care, guaranteed pensions, guaranteed employment and then they tend to be anti-business, anti-free trade, even though a lot of their members work for business.

Even though the Democratic Party still supports the right to organize and collective bargain, including for public employees and the Democratic Socialist faction of the Democratic Party is still in lock step with organized labor. Especially the so-called House Progressive Caucus, they are still a small faction of the party.

The Democratic Party has moved away and I believe for good reason from the policy’s of the leadership of organized labor, for about twenty years now. And have become a Center-Left, pro-capitalist party. Still liberal on social issues and supporters of the safety net. But doesn’t believe government can solve all problems that society faces with more government programs.

The Democratic Party had been handcuffed to a certain extent to organized labor in the past. Organized labor still has strong roots in the Democratic Party, but no longer runs it.

Organized labor still controls about 20% of the party, the so-called House Progressive Caucus. They are becoming a movement without a party and their numbers are shrinking. They need to realign and reform and find a party that they can influence. If they still want to be a major force in American politics.

Even though the leadership of organized labor is left-wing, a lot of their members are blue-collar and if they are Democrats, more like FDR and Harry Truman, Center-Left, Progressive Democrats, as opposed to the Henry Wallace, or George McGovern, Far-Left Democratic Socialists, that are making big waves in the modern Democratic Party today.

Read Full Post »

Crooks & Liars: Richard Eskow- ‘Was This the Social Contract’s Comeback Year?’

Source:Crooks & Liars– U.S. House Minority While Steny Hoyer (Democrat, Maryland) speaking at a Third Way policy conference.

“What a difference a year makes. Last year at this time, a president and a party who had just won an election with progressive rhetoric were quickly pivoting toward a “Grand Bargain” which would cut Social Security and Medicare. Leaders in both parties were obsessed with deficits, and there was “bipartisan” consensus that these “entitlements” needed to be cut. The only questions left to debate were when they would be cut, and by how much. To resist these moves was to be dismissed as “unserious” and “extreme” — in Washington, in newsprint, and on the airwaves.

Today the forces of corporate consensus are on the defensive. It’s considered politically reckless to get too far out front on the subject of benefit cuts. Some of the think tanks who advocated Austerity Lite one year ago are focused now on inequality. And, as the leaders of Third Way learned recently, the same rhetoric which earned nods of approval all across Washington this time last year can get you slapped down today.”

You can read the rest of Richard Eskow’s piece at Crooks & Liars

“A promotional video produced by the US government to highlight the projects and programs of the Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression.”

Source:All Histories– a film about the New Deal.

From All Histories 

When it comes to things like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare Insurance, Medicare. Public Housing, Food Assistance (to use several examples) I prefer the term safety net or a public social insurance system or PSIS. Which are insurances that people who need them can collect when, well they need them. But if you able to take care or yourself and you have what is called economic freedom that is the ability to pay your own bills and be self-sufficient in life with money left over to spend in things you want, then that is essentially the American dream.

Then that is exactly what you and this is how a safety net or PSIS would be different from what is called in Europe especially in Scandinavia a welfare state. Where there are all sorts of public programs funded through taxes (not free for the people) there to take care of people.

I as a Liberal Democrat do not want to have to live off of government or anyone else if I’m able to take care of myself. That would be just one example that would separate me from a Democratic Socialist or a Social Democrat. Someone who bases their political philosophy on what government can do for people when it comes to economics.

If you want to use the term social contract, fine I’ll go along with that. But what I’m really in favor of when it comes to American capitalism is individual economic power. Again which is another way of saying economic freedom. And what I would like to see in this country and perhaps even go back to is an economic power system that is there for all Americans to be able to take advantage of to create their own economic freedom.

And this is where government plays its biggest role along with regulating predatory behavior. And this comes from making quality education and job training available for everyone universally to everyone K-adulthood if needed. So as many Americans as possible have that individual economic power or people power to be able to take care of themselves. And live a good life however they define that for themselves without having to use public assistance or private charity. In order to pay their own way and bills.

If you are talking about having a federal government so big especially as it relates to economic policy that it is designed to meet a lot if not most of people’s economic needs, you are no longer talking about a safety net or a social insurance system, but a welfare state. A socialist superstate big government at about as big as it can without nationalizing the entire economy and outlawing private property all together. And that is not what I’m in favor of.

Read Full Post »

The Daily Beast: Jonathan Miller: ‘ObamaCare is Winning in Kentucky Thanks to Steve Beshear’

Source:The Daily Beast– From left to right: Governor Steve Beshear, (Democrat, Kentucky) U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) and U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky,

“We stuck with the Union in favor of our favorite son, Lincoln, but then joined in common cause with the Confederacy after the Civil War had ended. A century later, we boasted some of the nation’s most progressive civil rights laws; yet, to this date, we still feature many of America’s most segregated societies. And while Kentucky’s been one of the largest beneficiaries of the New Deal/Great Society welfare state, the dominant strain in our politics remains a fierce anti-government, anti-tax worldview.

Kentucky’s perplexing and hypocritical aversion to big government has been exploited brilliantly by our senior senator Mitch McConnell, who’s capitalized on our cultural resentment of elite interference to transform the Bluegrass State into a deep-red citadel in federal elections. More recently, our junior senator Rand Paul catapulted McConnell’s vision much further than Mitch intended, placing Kentucky in the crosshairs of the Tea Party revolution. But while these two political icons and their surrogates clash over the depth of government slashing, they’ve been steadfastly united behind one common vision: the defeat, and, more recently, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

It’s no coincidence then that Obamacare is beginning to expose the political fault line that divides the two Kentuckys. The GOP’s effective—and quite misleading—messaging plays into the anti-establishment populace’s greatest fears about out-of-control outside interference: the myth of a government-run-health-care system, engineered by a President with socialist tendencies (and whose skin pigmentation and exotic name frankly heighten popular anxiety in some of the nation’s least educated counties). And yet, when you wade through the propaganda and understand the law’s true impact, Kentucky needs the Affordable Care Act…desperately. It’s a state consistently ranked near the bottom of nearly every national health survey, where one out of every six citizens remains uninsured.

With our long-standing tradition of timid politicians fearful of incurring the wrath of the anti-government mobs, it wouldn’t have been surprising to see Kentucky join much of Red America and reject both Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion to the working poor, as well as its option of establishing a state-run health benefit exchange to provide affordable health care to the remaining uninsured.

But in a delicious irony, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul’s home state may ultimately serve as the proving ground of Obamacare’s success. That’s due to the political chutzpah of one man: Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear.

Over the past several months, Beshear used his broad executive powers to bypass resistance from the GOP-controlled state Senate to ensure that the Commonwealth is the only Southern state that both expanded its Medicaid rolls and opened up a health benefit exchange, providing access to affordable health care to our more than 640,000 uninsured citizens. And while the federal launch of the program has been plagued with technical difficulties, Kentucky’s experience has been exemplary: In its first day, 10,766 applications for health coverage were initiated, 6,909 completed and 2,989 families were enrolled. Obama himself bragged that Kentucky led the nation with its glitch-minimized performance.

It would be hyperbolic to crown Steve Beshear as a profile in courage. The Governor’s second and final term expires in two years, and he’s made clear that this is his last political hurrah. However, Beshear is keenly interested in the political prospects of his son Andy—the betting favorite in the 2015 race for Attorney General—and he understands that even a tangential connection to the unpopular Obama carries a heavy political burden. Furthermore, the Governor isn’t quietly going about the business of administering the new law: Beshear has been gleefully poking the eye of the Tea Party beast — and its subservient U.S. Senators—and channeling Harry Truman in the national media circuit: In a recent New York Times op-ed, Beshear crowed: “[T]o those more worried about political power than Kentucky’s families, I say, ‘Get over it’…and get out of the way so I can help my people. Here in Kentucky, we cannot afford to waste another day or another life.”

From The Daily Beast 

I’m not a mindreader (obviously) but if I had to guess I would say that the hyper-partisan, right-wing base of the Republican Party hates the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare) but I don’t think that’s who they really hate or what they really hate.

What the right-wing in America really hates is President Barack Hussein Obama, who the Far-Right of the party, which might be the dominant faction in the Republican Party, sees as an Un-American, Muslim-Socialist, from Kenya, who represents everything that they hate about modern America. And now that President Obama has ObamaCare on his legacy, that adds 20 million Americans to the health insurance roles in this country, they hate him even more.

Again, I’m no mindreader, but had a President John McCain got the Affordable Care Act or McCainCare (as it would’ve been called) and gotten the exact same law that President Obama gotten through a Democratic Congress in 2009-10, you wouldn’t see the Republican Party, even with a Republican House trying to repeal the ACA today. The Republican right-wing’s opposition to ObamaCare, is really about Barack Obama, not as much as the law itself.

Read Full Post »

President Barack H. Obama: ‘End This Government Shutdown’

Source:The White House– President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States of America.

“Weekly Address: End the Government Shutdown

WASHINGTON, DC— In this week’s address, President Obama said that Republicans in the House of Representatives chose to shut down the government over a health care law they don’t like. He urged the Congress to pass a budget that funds our government, with no partisan strings attached. The President made clear he will work with anyone of either party on ways to grow this economy, create new jobs, and get our fiscal house in order for the long haul — but not under the shadow of these threats to our economy.”

From Dazzle Site

What Democrats should be doing especially the Democratic National Committee and the House Democratic Leadership, is pressuring vulnerable House Republicans in their districts and urging voters there to call their Republican Representatives and urging them to end this government shutdown by coming out in favor of the Senate passed government funding bill, that has House Republican budget numbers (not Democratic) but is a clean funding bill without outside language in it, like repealing or defunding the Affordable Care Act.

You get 20-30 House Republicans to come out in favor of this and even be in favor of a discharge petition to get the Senate funding bill on the House floor, Speaker Boehner would see he no longer has the votes to block the Senate bill and would call for a vote of it himself to avoid being embarrassed by it on the House floor. Or would stick with the House Tea Party Caucus in order to not lose his job. Either way, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would be able to get the Senate bill to the House floor and the government shutdown would be over.

Read Full Post »