https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...n-reach-366992

Politico has their terminology wrong. It's "war hawks", not "defense hawks." I might also accept "graft hawks" or "pork hawks".

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nnell-promises

Sanders interviewing de Blasio to ask what it's like to be a progressive mayor leading a progressive city is a ****ing travesty.

Does Bernie just not know the truth or what? Surprised his staff doesn't have this figured out.

In the end I think this will probably be a good play. Dems have given McConnell the chance to either do what he said he would do or turn into Hillary Clinton and get into the finer details of the meaning of words. If there’s another shutdown after McConnell said he'd have this debate, it’ll be clear to the public whose fault it is and no amount of weasel words will get him out of it.

Assuming they aren't entirely complicit in the charade.

What is the truth? DeBlasio doesn't seem bad to me, universal preschool is legit. And I always hear him on WNYC pushing for a millionaire's tax to pay for MTA.

Yeah, it's either cries about purity tests or being in bed with the unpure. Maybe di Blasio (or Obama) aren't pure, but they aren't deplorable either and standing next to them doesn't contaminate anyone.

Pork hawks sounds like something that would be delicious and therefore should be disqualified.

The military spending stuff is just so absurd. I don't think I can really ever commit myself to voting for a candidate who does not clearly express a position to reduce (or at the very least, not increase) military spending.

Then I guess you won't be voting because military spending is absolutely a case where both parties suck.

Nothing to do with a purity test--if de Blasio presented himself honestly (which is probably a bit left of Obama) instead of as some progressive rallying cry I would have no issue with it.

Instead, he constantly tries to ally himself with Sanders, etc. because he wants to run for higher office and wants to be viewed as a progressive because he thinks it will help him politically.

His first real political job was under Bill Clinton and he ran Hillary's Senate campaign! He's pro gentrification. Pro charter schools. He's been awful in general on race issues in NYC.

Yes, he started pre-K. Cool. He has accomplished nothing else in the four years he's been in office except piss people off, all across the political spectrum.

He's not a progressive. That's fine, but he should stop trying to act like one.

Oh, P.S. The NYC mayor has nothing do with the MTA. Cuomo makes the rules (unfortunately). It's basically a free shot for de Blasio to take at the governor whenever he wants--not that I'm defending Cuomo (who I loathe magnitudes more than BdB).

Hillary said she had the most progressive platform in history and I still voted for her even. I'm certainly not mad at people simply because they campaigned for her. Why not rip on Bernie for endorsing Hillary? I get you aren't fond of DeBlasio, but ripping on Bernie for having something to do with him? Seems unreasonable. DeBlasio doesn't stink so bad that it rubs off that easily.

Oh, sorry if I wasn't clear. Was not ripping on Bernie at all--mostly on de Blasio for being fake as **** (and a bit on Bernie's staff for not seeing through it).

Bernie doesn't live in NYC and has a lot more on his plate--it would be a bit absurd for me to expect him to know everything about BdB.

So the DCCC candidate that was part of a medical device SuperPAC that lobbied mostly Republicans, presumably to repeal the ACA claims that she was only doing it because..

Leaning a bit too hard on the identity politics as a cover for corporatism there.

http://m.startribune.com/in-dfl-race...per/471350464/

Yup, blow it all up. Bernie or bust.

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/31/...draising-dccc/

At least they gave Ed Rendell the chance to give a rebuttal at the end. It's clear that defending the status quo is indefensible.

It sucks but I think Rendell's response is fine. Paul's article was good and understand his frustration but what does he want Rendell to do about it? Only Supreme Court justices have the ability to change the current state of affairs.

Yea I respect the Intercept for putting out something that covers the complexity a bit more. The DCCC is terrible but the whole game is terrible. Chapo's interview with a socialist running for Hawaii talked about part of it. He said he was a part time telemarketer even though he didn't want to and small donor strategy is extremely hard. He was talking about "I'm hustling someone for 10 dollars, 10 dollars!". The way it is, it's just much much easier to hit up a few big fish to have the money than it is trying to upkeep a network of small donors.

That being said, the political strength and movement politics is in building a network of people, not in pump and dump email games and showing up, asking for money, and then disappearing, so the DCCC shouldn't have always been trying to swim against the current, and they haven't, they've been leaning into it.

Rendell himself is pure DNC establishment swine. He spent his entire two terms as PA's governor undermining the public employee unions and privatizing public services. He then proceeded to demand increases in education spending which required new revenue to fund.

The Republicans in our state house are all Tea Party slappies now, so they were obviously like, "LOL, no" and PA now almost never passes a state budget on time and has numerous shut downs and even attempts to freeze pay for the state employees. He also signed off on changes to the pension system which have destabilized it to the point that new employees will not enjoy to the same retirement benefit as those they work beside who managed to get hired just a year or two prior.

He was so bad that AFSCME membership was very split as to whether or not the union should endorse him when he ran for reelection or go NOTA.

Schumer cuts a deal that gives the GOP funding for TWO YEARS and doesn't get anything for the Dreamers.

Pelosi gives a meaningless, grandstanding 8-hour speech, and gets a standing ovation and high fives from House Dems.

Dreamers get... thoughts and prayers?

I pray they get saved, but I think we're all going to hell for this travesty.

OK? Then why bother with the filibuster? I mean pick one or the other, meaningless displays are meaningless displays.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politi...nt-whip-caucus

Yes, by Schumer cutting a deal with McConnell for a huge spending bill anathema to the Freedumb Caucus they had it set it perfectly up to bypass our very stupid media parroting R's "Dems vote against spending bill, Ds filibuster and shutdown government to put illegals over Americans and our military!!!!" message by passing it out of the Senate first and sending it to the House where Rs have large majority and there is no filibuster.

Would be hard, though not impossible, for our very stupid media to avoid putting all the blame of another shutdown on Rs and Ryan then.

New reports that Pelosi is now whipping against the bill unless Ryan promises not to block a DREAMer vote. Possible that Chuck and Nancy pulled a fast one on McConnell by saying she wouldn't do that and are now reversing course. Though obviously most likely explanation is that they are all cowards and only do the right thing after extreme pressure is placed on them.

I hope no one reading that thinks the DoD just got $80B rather than on top of the other $700B.

This kind of thinking plays into Trumps hands. Dreamers will not be massively deported no matter what. Thinking otherwise hands Trump a bargaining chip he doesn't actually have.