From the Horse's Mouth

Wonkette Commenter Kooolest G:

as a 48 year old white non college straight man, I can tell you, DON'T TRY TO CATER TO ME!!!!!!!!!! every time you try to reach out to 1 moderate old white man, you tell 3 college kids that their issues don't matter to the democratic party and there's no sense in voting cause both parties are the same old shit. also as a middle aged uneducated white man I can tell you WE NEVER ADMIT WE'RE WRONG!!!!!!! so even if there's a shadow of doubt that trump might have conned us, we'll admit and vote against him right after we stop and ask somebody for directions. which means never.

The 50-Year-Old Reason to Fight

Undercover Blue at Hullabaloo:

If I may, check out this thread from Will Bunch on why we do what we do.

I'm Bunch's age, I watched it too, and I'm here for the same reason.

The Message That Beat the Democratic Old Guard

I am sure she would be thrilled if every Democratic candidate in the nation stole and used this whole thing.  Because THIS is how we're going to win.

Down with Tyranny:

Steve M:

Assuming that Ocasio-Cortez wins in November -- which is likely, because it's a solidly Democratic district -- the seriously lefty platform she ran on is now within the Overton window.

Governors' Policies Matter

Keep this for the next time somebody tells you there is no difference between the parties.

Nancy LeTourneau at Political Animal:

Way back in early 2015, I suggested that a great way to demonstrate the outcomes of Republican vs Democratic policies is to compare what has happened in Wisconsin and Minnesota since 2010. The Economic Policy Institute just updated the numbers.

Since the 2010 election of Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Governor Mark Dayton in Minnesota, lawmakers in these two neighboring states have enacted vastly different policy agendas. Governor Walker and the Wisconsin state legislature have pursued a highly conservative agenda centered on cutting taxes, shrinking government, and weakening unions. In contrast, Minnesota under Governor Dayton has enacted a slate of progressive priorities: raising the minimum wage, strengthening safety net programs and labor standards, and boosting public investments in infrastructure and education, financed through higher taxes (largely on the wealthy).

Because of the proximity and many similarities of these two states, comparing economic performance in the Badger State (WI) versus the Gopher State (MN) provides a compelling case study for assessing which agenda leads to better outcomes for working people and their families. Now, seven years removed from when each governor took office, there is ample data to assess which state’s economy—and by extension, which set of policies—delivered more for the welfare of its residents. The results could not be more clear: by virtually every available measure, Minnesota’s recovery has outperformed Wisconsin’s.

This is precisely why I’ll be paying a lot of attention to governors races this November.

Unity, Not Compromise

Conservatives used to sneer at liberal "open-mindedness" by pointing out that an open mind lets your brains fall out.  

They were wrong.  But now I say that a too-open tent that lets your enemies in is suicidal.

People who fought for the other candidate in the Democratic presidential primary are not our enemy. 

 

People who want to deny our basic human rights are our enemy.

• People who think it's OK for cops to shoot and kill unarmed black people with impunity are not our allies.
• People who think women are mindless wombs who must be forced to give birth are not our allies.
• People who think it's OK to treat non-cis, non-straight people like criminals or sub-humans are not our allies.
• People who think it's OK to discriminate against somebody else's religion but demand special favors for their own are not our allies.
• People who think workers are drones who don't deserve a living wage or a union are not our allies.
• People who descended from immigrants but think all other immigrants should be deported are not our allies.
• People who think torture works are not our allies.
• People who support the death penalty are not our allies.
• People who think climate change is real but we need fossil fuels so there's nothing we can do about it are not our allies.
• People who think for-profit corporations can operate public services like schools and water and parks better than government can are not our allies.
• People who think rich people need more money are not our allies.
• People who think poor people are lazy, criminal drug addicts are not our allies.
• People who think health care is a privilege reserved for those who can afford it are not our allies.
• People who think the War on Drugs is a great idea are not our allies.
• People who think marijuana is worse than heroin but alcohol is not are not our allies.
• People who think war is the answer are not our allies. 
• People who think that some people shouldn't be allowed to vote are not our allies.

Open the Democratic tent to everyone who shares ALL our values.  And no one else.

Political Animal:

The issues that suddenly divide us? Apparently whether we, as a party, will be unyielding in a woman’s right to choose. Taking a page out of the right’s playbook, Jane Sanders called fighting for that right “political correctness.” I see it as core and just as central to who we are as a party as the bullet points above. We’re apparently arguing over whether economic equality would keep immigrant families from being torn apart by immigration authorities (it wouldn’t), or keep African Americans from being shot in the streets and killed in jail cells (it wouldn’t), or keep Donald Trump from grabbing a woman’s pussy (it hasn’t).

From there Markos discusses where he sees the current divide.

It is interesting to me that these are sometimes referred to as “cultural issues.” But if you are a woman whose economic survival is threatened by a pregnancy, I’m sure that the right to chose can’t simply be relegated to a cultural phenomenon. Same would be true if your family’s survival depends of what an ICE officer decides to do with his time, or if you are a black man in the middle of getting pulled over by a police officer. In all of those instances, these are life and death matters. That is why women and people of color react so strongly to being told that speaking up about them is divisive. It is actually the other sides trampling of their lives that is divisive. We need to be clear about that.

A lot of this discussion was reignited when Bernie Sanders chose to endorse a Democratic candidate who was openly anti-choice. I tend to think about that this way: would I vote for an anti-choice Democrat if the only alternative was the mini-me Trump that is my current representative? You betcha I would! That is what politics is often about in a two-party system.

On the other hand, this morning I read an article from Politico about why the Christian right is so thrilled with Donald Trump’s presidency and have become the one constituency he can rely on. It is all based on what we call “cultural issues” – and that is overwhelmingly about the steps this president has taken (and promised to take) to strip women of their right to chose. So let’s be honest…these are the battles we face right now. Any backing off from fighting them will destroy decades of progress that our predecessors fought for so valiantly.

The challenge Democrats have always faced can be summed up with questions like this:

• Are men prepared to fight for a woman’s right to chose?
• Are white people prepared to fight against racism?
• Are citizens prepared to fight for those who are undocumented?
• Are white collar workers prepared to fight for unions?
• Are the wealthy prepared to fight for the middle class?
• Are those who have good health insurance through their employer prepared to fight for those who don’t?
• Are members of the upper and middle class prepared to fight for those in poverty?
• Are the middle-aged prepared to fight for seniors?
• Are seniors prepared to fight for young people?

I could go on, but perhaps you get the point.

Whenever the answer to one of those questions is “no,” or when the message is sent either directly or indirectly that “my issue is more important than yours,” the divide widens. That is what makes the challenge more difficult for Democrats than Republicans. We can’t afford to play a zero-sum game. We have to care about people who aren’t like us because that is the definition of what “liberal” means.

Marcos ends his piece with a powerful quote from Australian Aboriginal activist Lilla Watson.

If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time.

But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.

The over-arching goal of liberalism is that “your liberation is bound up with mine.” That is what it means to form a coalition. That was Bernice Johnson Reagon’s message way back in 1981 and it is what Rev. William Barber is talking about when it comes to “fusion politics.” It is the only path forward for Democrats.

Sanders Leader Named Leader of Kentucky Democratic Party

So, the Kentucky Democratic (Republican) Party thinks it can fool the restive liberals in its ranks by naming a Sanders leader as executive director.

I sincerely hope that she knows better.  I sincerely hope she understands that party apparatchiks throughout the state are already sabotaging any effort to build a movement and organize members to elect real Democratic candidates. I sincerely hope she rallies the awakened and enraged progressives in the Commonwealth to take back the party that has betrayed us for decades.

But I doubt it.

From the AP:

The party announced Mary Nishimuta (Nish-ah-moo-tah) of Frankfort as the new executive director on Friday. She will serve under state party chairwoman Sannie Overly, a state representative from Paris.

Nishimuta was a national team leader for Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign and was a delegate for him to the Democratic National Convention.

SNIP

A graduate of Georgia Tech, Nishimuta has worked for various Fortune 500 companies and is the co-owner of the Kentucky Coffeetree Cafe in Frankfort. She said her goal is to build a strong party in all of Kentucky's 120 counties.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/latest-news/article145953894.html#storylink=cpy

California Must Stand and Fight

There's a growing movement for secession in California, but David Atkins says No.

The true role of the progressive is not to run fleeing from tyranny, but to serve as a shield for the defenseless. California and its 55 electoral votes must do likewise, protecting the rest of the country from the rampaging cruelty of Trump’s white nationalist base.

Only Obstacle to Ending Inequality Is Repugs

We don't have nice things in this country because repugs and the rich are stealing it all for themselves.

Can't decide on a single issue to drive you in The Resistance?  Try income inequality: it's simple and easy to sell.  All it takes to make it happen is working to elect progressives.

Erik Loomis at LGM:

Of course growing inequality is not inevitable. Robert Kuttner:

But can we ever get that back? Of course we can—the obstacles are political, not economic.

We could have much higher minimum wages. We could stop the union-bashing. We could restore a brand of globalization that promotes rather than undermines national social standards. We could invest massively in a green transition, modeled on the World War II mobilization that reduced unemployment from 14 percent to 2 percent in two years and produced tens of millions of good jobs.

As technology replaces human work, we could also give everyone a share of that new production, the way the Alaska Permanent Fund gives all Alaskans a share of that state’s oil revenues. Any advances created with the help of government—from subsidy of biomedical research to free-riding on the internet—could be subject to a share-the-wealth levy. Author Peter Barnes is the inspiration for this idea.

Is this broad vision crazy? It is far less crazy than the folly of supply-side economics that is back in fashion, which will only make America more needlessly unequal.

As Kuttner points out, this is a question of political power, not some sort of inevitable force in the economy. In the New Gilded Age, corporations have torn down most of the limitations to their wealth that were erected between the 1930s and 1970s to create a more equitable society. They are now seeking to eliminate the last of those barriers (and largely will in the next 4 years) and repeal much of the Progressive Era as well. These are grim times indeed. But they are not inevitable. The obstacles we have to overcome to turn this tide are certainly no greater than those of workers a century ago. But we have to commit to this fight to do it. A more robust Democratic Party leading an actual fight would help but we are a long ways from that. And the loss of class consciousness, even among the white working class toward other members of the white working class (racism has usually trumped class consciousness across races of course) certainly makes this harder. But it is not impossible. It will however probably be one of the critical struggles of our remaining lives.

"Progessives of Faith" Can't Stop Trump

Oh, DR Tucker, wake up.  "Liberal Christians" have been enabling racist, misogynisitic, homophobioc, Dominionist freakazoids for decades. They are cowardly motherfuckers and always have been.

Progressives of faith will declare, firmly and forcefully, that Donald Trump in the White House means more for those that already have and less for those who barely have anything, more discrimination on the basis of race and religion, more women being harassed and harangued by misogynist men who see Trump as their role model. It means more injustice, more ignorance, more intolerance. It means America abandoning its best values…which is why progressives of faith cannot and will not let Donald Trump destroy America’s melting-pot legacy. 

Yes, they will. "Progressives of faith" will do what they have always done, which is wring their hands and whine and moan and stand aside while the forces of hate run roughshod over American Democracy.

"Progressives of Faith" are the biggest supporters Donald Trump has.

The Real Progressive Who Forced Change on the Democratic Party

Did you see the camera catch him in McArthur Park in Chicago that epic night in 2008?  The tears running down his face.  Tears, I thought, of joy but also regret and also pride.

Because 20 years earlier he had forced on the Democratic party the populist changes - proportional delegates - that made it possible for a black man to become president.

Not himself, though he fought hard and came damn close, but another who owes too much to ever repay.

I voted for Jesse Jackson in the Democratic presidential primaries in 1984 and 1988.  I was fortunate to live in an early primary state where he was still on the ballot. I cherish those votes almost as much as the ones I cast for Barack Hussein Obama.

Jackson got cheers from white people in places that shouldn't have been a surprise: coal country and farm country and cancer-causing factory strips where people felt abandoned by politicians, until Jackson stood up and spoke directly to their fears and their hopes.

PZ Myers remembers:

It’s good to see someone mention that the Democratic party has deep progressive roots. He mentions a lot of names that stirred up sad memories. Jesse Jackson, presidential candidate in 1984 and 1988; I supported him, although his campaign fizzled out in the primaries before I got to have a say out in Oregon (I really detest our system that gives Iowa and New Hampshire an undeserved excess of privilege in electoral politics). Howard Dean in 2004; he was my preferred candidate then, too. I have a long history of support for failed candidacies, I’m afraid.

I keep making these choices, and will keep on doing it, though. He quotes Jackson’s speech before the Democratic Convention, and yeah, it reminds me why.

We find common ground at the plant gate that closes on workers without notice. We find common ground at the farm auction, where a good farmer loses his or her land to bad loans or diminishing markets. Common ground at the school yard where teachers cannot get adequate pay, and students cannot get a scholarship, and can’t make a loan. Common ground at the hospital admitting room, where somebody tonight is dying because they cannot afford to go upstairs to a bed that’s empty waiting for someone with insurance to get sick. We are a better nation than that. We must do better. Common ground. What is leadership if not present help in a time of crisis? So I met you at the point of challenge. In Jay, Maine, where paper workers were striking for fair wages; in Greenville, Iowa, where family farmers struggle for a fair price; in Cleveland, Ohio, where working women seek comparable worth; in McFarland, California, where the children of Hispanic farm workers may be dying from poisoned land, dying in clusters with cancer; in an AIDS hospice in Houston, Texas, where the sick support one another, too often rejected by their own parents and friends.

Nothing has changed. It’s gotten worse for people like that, if anything.

It’s worth listening to the whole thing.



(It’s in multiple parts, sorry, but really, worth finding it all.)

I have to include a little more than Pierce did. Note that there’s a fair bit of God and Bible in it; if this militant atheist can forgive it for the greater message, than you can do it too.

Common ground. America is not a blanket woven from one thread, one color, one cloth. When I was a child growing up in Greenville, South Carolina and grandmamma could not afford a blanket, she didn’t complain and we did not freeze. Instead she took pieces of old cloth — patches, wool, silk, gabardine, crockersack — only patches, barely good enough to wipe off your shoes with. But they didn’t stay that way very long. With sturdy hands and a strong cord, she sewed them together into a quilt, a thing of beauty and power and culture. Now, Democrats, we must build such a quilt.

Farmers, you seek fair prices and you are right — but you cannot stand alone. Your patch is not big enough.

Workers, you fight for fair wages, you are right — but your patch labor is not big enough.
Women, you seek comparable worth and pay equity, you are right — but your patch is not big enough.

Women, mothers, who seek Head Start, and day care and prenatal care on the front side of life, relevant jail care and welfare on the back side of life, you are right — but your patch is not big enough.

Students, you seek scholarships, you are right — but your patch is not big enough.

Blacks and Hispanics, when we fight for civil rights, we are right — but our patch is not big enough.

Gays and lesbians, when you fight against discrimination and a cure for AIDS, you are right — but your patch is not big enough.

Conservatives and progressives, when you fight for what you believe, right wing, left wing, hawk, dove, you are right from your point of view, but your point of view is not enough.

But don’t despair. Be as wise as my grandmamma. Pull the patches and the pieces together, bound by a common thread. When we form a great quilt of unity and common ground, we’ll have the power to bring about health care and housing and jobs and education and hope to our Nation.

We, the people, can win.

We stand at the end of a long dark night of reaction. We stand tonight united in the commitment to a new direction. For almost eight years we’ve been led by those who view social good coming from private interest, who view public life as a means to increase private wealth. They have been prepared to sacrifice the common good of the many to satisfy the private interests and the wealth of a few.

We believe in a government that’s a tool of our democracy in service to the public, not an instrument of the aristocracy in search of private wealth. We believe in government with the consent of the governed, “of, for and by the people.” We must now emerge into a new day with a new direction.

Is it too late to vote for Jackson? Remember, he lost to Reagan in 1984 and George HW Bush in 1988. Imagine what a different country we’d be living in if those two establishment conservatives had been defeated.

 Imagine the country we can still live in if we support the progressive movement that is rolling across the country right now.

Wake Me When Popey Frankie Says Women Are More Important Than Blastocysts

On second thought, better wake me when he goes back to the vatican, 'cause he's never gonna say adult women matter as anything other than walking wombs.

Think Progress:

A papal visit to the United States is cool and all, but should progressives even care?

The short answer: Yes. Yes, you should. Especially if you want legislative action on immigration reform, climate change, or income inequality.

No. No you shouldn't.  And for the same reason you should reject any smiling offers from self-described "libertarians" who claim that Rand Paul attracts the same voters that Bernie Sanders does.

Bernie Sanders and his supporters are pro-choice, pro-gay-rights and pro-civil-rights-for-minorities. The Tribble-Toupeed One and his supporters are violently opposed to all three.

Catlicks and other freakazoids are not progressive - just as "libertarians" are not libertarian - and never will be until they accept the full humanity and bodily autonomy of women, gay people and non-white people.

And may they all hang from a rope until they do.

How National Dems Sabotage Winnable Races

Wonder why repug congressional candidates seem to breathe fire while your "Democratic" congressional candidates seem so mild and insubstantial a puff of wind would knock them down?

Because that's how the people who run the national "Democratic" funding machines want it to be.

Every congressional district, no matter how red, harbors fire-breathing progressive candidates who might just be able to turn the tide with the power of their passion, but they are locked out of contention by the DCCC and DSCC poohbahs who starve them of money or chase them out of the race.

It's even more inexcusable in swing districts or those with weak repug competition where a decent Democratic candidate could win.

But the national dems don't want to win. They want milquetoast "centrists" who will vote with the money power to keep the money power in, you know, power.

Gaius Publius at Hullabaloo:

Your bottom line, both Senate and House leadership are willing to lose winnable seats. Their real goal — keep real progressives from ever holding office. In other words, they'd rather run money-corrupted, insider-friendly candidates who could easily lose than real populists who might win.

Read the whole thing.

Letting the Left Lead the Fight

This is only happening because the political mess 40 years of conservadem, DINO, "Third Way" politics created is so huge, disgusting and unfixable that the establishment figures trying to clean it up might just kill off the left once and for all.

Now it's up to the left to show what it can do - and, once it succeeds, hang on to power instead of handing it back to those who created the mess.

TPM:

As Republicans take control of Congress for the first time since 2006, the Democrats' crushing midterm defeat and the rise of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have empowered the progressive wing to step up their fight for the soul of the party ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Their message: Stop catering to big business. Listen to populists like Warren on how to rebuild the tarnished brand. Champion transformative ideas that will improve the lives of middle class Americans. If not, Democrats are toast in 2016.

"I can tell you, if Democrats try to adopt a Third Way, Democratic Leadership Council-type philosophy where we abandon average working Americans, we're not going to be successful [in 2016] or in general," Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told TPM. "This is a time where people talking about raising wages, fair trade bills that do not offshore our jobs, strengthening the right to organized labor unions. This is that moment to grab those issues in order to be successful. And if we abandon those issues and we sort of become Republican-lite, we're not going to be successful."

David Atkins at Political Animal:

More importantly, the establishment centrists have clearly failed the country. The public has never had less faith in social or government institutions than it does today. Every other month seems to produce some new moral or institutional crisis demonstrating the failure of American elites to police their own. Wages refuse to go up no matter what happens with the rest of the economy, and the middle class is shrinking and unstable. The only utterly indefensible position is that major changes aren’t necessary, and that due respect for the mores of the Washington elite should trump blunt talk and sharp moves away from the status quo.

SNIP

So why, exactly, shouldn’t the progressive wing have its own response? One that promotes policies that are not only objectively wiser and proven right, but are also politically popular per public polling? The American people want comprehensive immigration reform. They want to reduce both wealth and income inequality. If the deficit must be reduced (and it’s not entirely clear that it must be), they want it reduced by taxing the obscenely wealthy. They want Wall Street curbed, and to break up banks that are too big to fail. They want to take action on climate change and move faster toward renewable energy. They want cheaper healthcare. They want more privacy protections, and fewer military interventions overseas.

And it just so happens that our best available evidence from social, environmental and economic science suggests that the American public is right about all these things.

So why shouldn’t there be a coalition in Washington that stands up for them? Why shouldn’t there be a group that threatens to primary leaders, play hardball with budget negotiations and upend longstanding traditions to achieve those legislative goals? What could possibly be wrong with that, when done in the service of the right policies? We already know from experience with the Tea Party that such an approach can be successful in defeating the centrists from a tactical standpoint.
The greatest error would be to join with the failed establishment types who treasure process over policy in protecting their social conventions. Change is needed. It’s just a question of what kind of change we’re going to get.

Let's Steal Tea Party Tactics to Beat Their Ideology

David Atkins at Political Animal:

Responsible people should be pushing back strongly on the notion that the progressive faction is somehow as dangerous as the Tea Party just because it has the courage to stand up to what Wall Street-friendly corporate centrists want. The progressive wing is right on the policy, and tactically it isn’t drawing any red lines that Republican legislators wouldn’t be able to sell to their base if they cared to.

Unless, of course, the Republican base isn’t their voters but rather the top tenth of one percent of incomes. But then, isn’t confronting and exposing that reality what decent politics is supposed to be all about?

Read the whole thing.

QOTD: Anti-Corporation Republicans

via Michael Kazen  and Political Animal:

“There once was a time in history when the limitation of governmental power meant increasing liberty for the people,” TR told his followers in the independent new Progressive Party in 1912. “In the present day, the limitation … of governmental action, means the enslavement of the people by the great corporations, who can only be held in check through the extension of governmental power.”

Alison's Repug-Lite Campaign Has Her Four Points Down

In endorsing Zephyr Teachout for New York Governor, the Nation editors wrote something Alison would be smart to consider for the remaining two months of her campaign:

... she understands that the Democratic Party must move toward progressive populism in order to become more than a tepid alternative to Republican extremism.

Joseph Gerth at the Courier:

Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell has put a little more distance between him and his Democratic opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, but the race remains within the margin of error, according to the latest Bluegrass Poll.

The poll, conducted by SurveyUSA for The Courier-Journal and three other news outlets, found that McConnell holds a 46 percent to 42 percent lead among likely voters over Grimes. Libertarian David Patterson gets 5 percent of the vote, and 8 percent remain undecided.

It's the third consecutive Bluegrass Poll that has found McConnell improving his chances for re-election in November. Before that, the poll found Grimes ahead by 4 points in a survey conducted in January and February.

If Grimes doesn't give Democratic voters a reason to vote for her better than "I'm not Mitch," and do it fast, she's losing by double digits to a wounded opponent a strong progressive could beat.

When Candidates Speak Liberal, Even If They Lose, Progressives Win

Digby explains why:

It's nice to see my concerns addressed. Many of the other candidates are also running ads that speak to the issues in a progressive way. And that, in turn, reinforces those ideas. It's a feedback loop. This is why it's important to support candidates who want to speak in these terms even when they are not going to win. Campaigns are educational opportunities as much as anything and if people never hear a candidate express liberal views or espouse a progressive agenda they have much less chance of ever knowing about them or feeling compelled to leave their house and go to the polls. It may not pay off in the short run, but over the long haul some people's minds may even be changed by it.

The Democratic Party's job is to elect Democrats, period. But the progressive movement has a different goal. They often intersect as they will here in California's 33rd. I'm sure the Party will welcome whichever Democrat wins (and if it's Independent marianne Williamson, I'm sure they'll welcome her too.) But where there is a progressive in a race against a party backed centrist or conservative, progressives have no obligation to back them over someone who hews more closely to their beliefs in primaries, even if the centrist or conservative has a better chance of winning, for all the reasons I just set forth. Unfortunately, for some reason, there are a lot of Democrats who become livid at the idea of anyone running for office in a conservative district who they believe is not "serious" because they espouse the very beliefs that virtually every candidate in my district are running on. It's as if such ideas are never even to be spoken of outside liberals enclaves on the coasts.

I feel just terrible that this makes some people uncomfortable (not), but the truth is that progressive ideas deserve a hearing every place in this country. There are people who believe as I believe all across the nation in all 50 states and while they may not be a majority who can win their district, they have a right to have their voices heard and perhaps persuade a few of their neighbors that the centrist, moderate or right wing worldview are not the only ways to look at the world. Who knows, maybe some day one of these liberal cranks will actually win a seat because of the groundwork that was laid by a few people who decided to run for office so they could talk about progressive ideas.

We've got one such courageous candidate right here in Kentucky.

Down With Tyranny:

There's a debate raging among progressives about Bernie Sanders running for president. [Blue America is encouraging him to run.] Most progressives-- or at least the ones I talk to-- think he should run. Some want him to run, as he has for his entire career, as an Independent. He would be on the ballot as an alternative to the two corporate shills the Republicans and the Democrats put up. Others want him to run in the primary as a Democrat-- something he has never done in his entire life-- so that he could debate Hillary Clinton on the issues she would rather not discuss, like economic inequality and corporate trade policies that have devastated the American middle class.

There's a similar dynamic playing out in Kentucky, where independent-minded progressive Democrat, Ed Marksberry has withdrawn from the Democratic primary-- when the Democratic Party elites and their Establishment stacked the deck unfairly against his long-shot bid-- and is now running as an independent against both horrible status quo, corporate-zombie candidates, Mitch McConnell ® and Alison Lundergan Grimes (D).

Ed is looking for some help to accelerate the collection of the 5,000 signatures he needs to get his name on the ballot. McConnell, a reviled underdog, is challenging Alison Lundergan Grimes to 3 debates and if Ed can get the signatures in time, he's likely to be able to join the debate(s). The issues he's talking about are not the issues either of the corporate candidates want to discuss.

"I know a lot of people," he told me this morning, "are asking why I decided to run as an Independent instead of just hanging in there and waiting for a better opportunity. The reason is simple; I found out that the establishment doesn't give a fuck about people like myself and it's not going to change. I'm okay with that and it feels pretty good being an Independent.

But I am worried about Climate Change and how backwards-ass our political leaders in Kentucky are and the strangle-hold King Coal has on them. This is an opportunity in the most the most watched US Senate race to take a chance to expose the truth about Climate Change."

SNIP

I’m not running to win; I’m running to influence the conversation about Climate Change, because if the good folks of Kentucky aren’t exposed to the truth, they will never change their hearts about Coal and Climate Change.

You see, sometimes you have to go right at the root of the problem even if it’s not the most popular thing to do at the time. But time is something we no longer have. And I need your help.

To have my name on the ballot I have to collect 5000 signatures. I’m well on my way but the quicker we get all 5000 signature the faster my voice we be heard in the media.

I’m pleading to you to support my campaign with any donation you can spare. Our goal is just $5000.00 over the next week. These donations will be used only to help collect the 5000 signatures.

You can donate by going to my website or clicking on the following link.

www.Marksberry2014.com

http://marksberry2014.com/donate-3/

As much as  I think Ed Marksberry would make a far, far better U.S. Senator than Alison Lundergan Grimes, I am not going to vote for him in November.  Nor will I encourage anyone else to do so.  But if you care about liberal policy and the future of the country, I urge you to contribute to Ed's campaign so that he can hold Grimes accountable for her repug views and promote progressive values in Kentucky.

 

Why Atheists Should Care About Progress

Because atheists are all about making the most of this life, which is the only one anybody gets, and making the most of this life requires social progress for all.

And because the biggest obstacle to progress is, always has been and always will be religion.

PZ Myers:

Debbie Goddard has a most excellent post on Skepchick (she should write more!), declaring that the atheist movement should care about poverty.

Unless we address the classism and broaden the elitist culture of the atheist movement, the underprivileged students in the Philadelphia public school classrooms that I’m familiar with and in the South Los Angeles classrooms that Sikivu Hutchinson works in will continue to be marginalized and will never have access to the “enlightened” educational opportunities that the movement too often takes for granted.

Some would say it’s not the movement’s responsibility to address poverty and public education. I disagree. This is a movement; we want the world to be a better place than it is now. We want to reduce suffering and foster a just society. If we agree there’s no cosmic justice system and there’s no reward for suffering after we die, we need to effect change here, now, in this life, in this world, for as many people as we can reach. Education is key for change to occur.

You won’t be surprised to learn that I agree completely, and that education is an excellent priority for atheist communities to pursue. She cites the Black Skeptics article I mentioned earlier today, in which they are looking for donations for their First in the Family Humanist Scholarship. It’s a worthy cause, and I donated…you should too, if you can.

Every effort to improve human knowledge is a contribution to atheism, so anything you can do will help; teach a child, donate books to your local library, volunteer at your elementary school. It’s our cunning godless scheme to make the world a better place.

How Progressives Miss the Point on Abortion

Joe Biden got it right:

I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people, women that they cannot control their body.

But there are too many "progressives" in positions of power who don't get it.

 

Digby completely eviscerates the "make abortions unnecessary" bullshit.

This issue will never be "solved" at least not that way. There will always be unintended pregnancies. That is a function of being human. And there will always be abortion. There always has been. Some people do not agree that women should have the right to do that and they will agitate to outlaw it. But it will not prevent it. Because women do own their own bodies and direct their own lives and some of them will go to extreme lengths to maintain that autonomy, even if it means putting their health and lives in danger. We have centuries of data supporting this.

So when a couple of elite males decide that they will find some sweet spot that will make these women happy as well as those who don't think these women should have the right to make that choice, it's an infuriating denial of women's basic human agency. It is simple. Women are going to have abortions, full stop. The only question is whether or not they are going to be forced to go through hell and possibly die to get them --- and whether society is going to admit that it cannot and should not make that decision for them. Once you accept that reality, the rest is just talk. If religious leaders want to counsel their adherents not to do it, fine. If politicians want to lecture the public that it's wrong, fine. If they want to create programs to help women get access to birth control and afford to raise kids if they want them and all the rest, terrific. If you care about your fellow humans, you should want all of that. But the right to abortion is a fundamental human right and the necessity of it being safe, legal and available is a requirement for a decent society.

The common behavior of everyday women from all walks of life proves that this is a simple question:

 Read the whole fact-packed thing.

Give Us Real Democratic Candidates

The other day I had a depressing conversation about why working class voters don't vote for Democratic candidates. The answer, of course, is because they don't think dems have done anything for them lately, and for the most part they are right.

But it's also because far too many dems act like repug-lite, so why vote for the motherfuckers?

Then I watched Jennifer Granholm interview Alvin Brown, the mayor of Jacksonville, FL. If I tell you he's a favorite of DLC founder and repug lite capo di tutti capo Bill Clinton, can you guess the rest?

Yep, Jennifer let him tout no restrictions on gun purchases but massive cuts in social spending. Then she failed to pin him down on whether he would campaign with President Obama - this from a black Democratic mayor! He even refused to say which presidential candidate would win. Look out, Harold Ford and Artur Davis - there's a new race/party traitor in town.

No wonder the video isn't posted on her website - the interview is shameful.

Working people aren't going to vote for Democratic candidates until the Democratic Party stops running repugs like Ben Chandler and starts running real Democratic candidates.

Down with Tyranny:

Gallup reported this week that voting enthusiasm among Democrats is down sharply from 2004 and 2008, while GOP voter enthusiasm is up. Gallup suggests that "Democrats' depressed enthusiasm may be influenced by the comparatively tough re-election battle the president is facing, likely due to the state of the economy and Americans' generally sour mood."

I want to propose two other possibilities. First, the GOP super-serves their base while the Democratic Party spits on theirs. Since 2010, House Republicans were willing-- even eager-- to make themselves look like clowns and imbeciles for the sake of their core constituents, and they were willing to do that irrespective of the damage they did to the country. It's not so much that Democratic congressmembers put country first-- though many of them certainly do-- as much as Democrats being confused and splintered... and conflicted. They like calling themselves a Big Tent party. But what is that mean? That they welcome all kinds of opportunists whose values (and voting records) are antithetical to core Democratic principles. And that brings us to the second problem.

In 2010 Democratic voters and left-leaning independents sent the Democratic Party a clear message at the polls. By staying away in unprecedented numbers-- and allowing the worst Tea Party monstrosities to win seats, take over states and take over Congress, even to the point of crippling the country-- grassroots Democrats made it clear they would NOT vote for Blue Dogs, New Dems and conservative disguised as Democrats. 63 seats changed hands, all but two from Democratic to Republican.

SNIP

Want to increase Democratic enthusiasm? Support real Democrats running for office-- like these.

 And you don't even have to wait until November - there are crucial Democratic primaries three Tuesdays in August. Here are the real Democrats running against repug-lite, DINO Blue Dog corporate shills:

 

Darcy Burner (WA-1)- August 7
Syed Taj (MI-11)- August 7
Trevor Thomas (MI-3)- August 7
Chris Donovan (CT-5)- August 14
Nick Ruiz (FL-7)- August 14
Matt Heinz (AZ-2)- August 28
Raúl Grijalva (AZ-3)- August 28