webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

LEFT

new tag lft 4/18 not 11 24, is this a tag?

http://democracyawakening.org/

good list? 3/16

SEE LIBERAL TERM CONCEPT belated 5 25

---

AN STATES 5 25

We’ve all heard about the nine Republican state Senators who decided they were going to start voting their conscience, only to be censured by their own party. As if they would somehow become contagious.

This series of events reminded me of something I’ve been wondering about, which is: Why it has become so fashionable to present ‘liberals’ as if we are dangerous, scary people. It is now one of those labels that Republicans throw around in order to discredit a person’s character. It showed up on every other flyer that I received during the last election cycle. And of course it’s one of those terms, for example “communist,” that most people probably wouldn’t be able to define if you asked them, even liberals themselves.

So I thought about the qualities that most of my friends have in common. And the top thing on that list would probably be curiosity. I hang out with people who always want to learn more, whether it’s about you, or about the history of the region where they live, or about whatever hobby they’re interested in. And of course that also means that they are readers. Because what is the best way to learn?

Another thing that most of my friends have in common is that they love people. They love meeting new people, they like to be in small groups where they can have discussions. They like to connect. And they like to help. I feel fortunate to know so many people who believe that helping others helps them become better people. And it also helps make the world a better place.

So far, I’m not seeing a lot to be scared of. But let’s keep looking.

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

Most of my friends love the arts. They love how music and films and dance and visual arts force them to look at things a little differently. They love how songs and movies make them feel something, whether it’s warm or frightening or confusing or ecstatic, the arts bring strong emotional responses into our lives in a way that is always unpredictable and surprising.

Most of my friends also love to be outside. They love what the earth has to offer. They like the challenge of a long bike ride, or a hike into the mountains. They like to hunt and fish, or float one of the incredible rivers that flow through our beautiful state. They value having access to the best that Montana has to offer.

A few days ago, Bruce Springsteen, who is only three years younger than Trump but looks at least 10 years younger, opened his latest tour in Manchester, England by sitting down at the front of the stage and delivering a calm, measured criticism of the current president. He didn’t make anything up or call him a bunch of juvenile names. He didn’t threaten him. He just laid out his opinion of the man’s actions in a way that was thoughtful and most importantly, factual. Here’s how he opened his speech, and it’s pretty brilliant:

“In America, my home, they’re persecuting people for their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. That’s happening now. In America, the richest men are taking satisfaction in abandoning the world’s poorest children to sickness and death. That’s happening now. In my country, they’re taking sadistic pleasure in the pain they inflict on loyal American workers. They’re rolling back historic civil rights legislation that led to a more just society. They’re abandoning our great allies and siding with dictators against those who are struggling for their freedom. That’s happening now. They are defunding American universities that won’t bow down to their ideological demands. And they are removing residents off American streets without due process of law and deploying them to foreign detention centers and prisons. That’s happening now.”

So maybe that’s it. It’s the honesty.

Most of my friends have never been convicted of a felony. Most of them have never been accused of rape, especially by multiple sources. Most of my friends wouldn’t think of referring to another country as a “sh–hole country.” They wouldn’t think to lump an entire race of people into one group and make sweeping generalizations about those people. Most of my wealthy friends wouldn’t think of rubbing their wealth in your face, or bragging about the fact that they don’t pay taxes, because they do. Most of them wouldn’t brag about going into the dressing room of a bunch of teenage girls while they’re getting ready for a pageant.

Most of my friends wouldn’t encourage people to beat the crap out of other people. Most of them wouldn’t make up lies on the spot just to make others look bad because they got their feelings hurt.

So the only thing that I can think of that makes liberals scary is that they try like hell to be honest, and if there’s one thing that scares Republicans at this moment in time, it’s the truth. Springsteen is fortunate to be huge enough that he can lose a huge chunk of his fan base without worrying about his career going off the rails.

But of course that doesn’t stop Donald Trump from trying his damnedest to discredit the man. And among other things, that means hitting him over the head with the dreaded “liberal” label. It didn’t stop Springsteen from doing the same thing at his next few stops, to the dismay of many of his long-term fans, and as someone so accurately pointed out, have they not been paying attention to what this man has stood for from the beginning?

The saddest part about Trump’s tantrums is how utterly childish they are. He always resorts to the most basic insults, saying he never liked Springsteen and that he has no talent—a meaningless insult coming from a guy who pals around with Kid Rock and Ted Nugent. Trump has and always will resort to the lowest form of attack, and that is exactly why he is so threatened by someone like Bruce, who did just the opposite.

So I guess I’ll keep doing what most of my friends have been doing, trying to become better people, failing here and there, but always striving to improve. Telling the truth as well as we know how, without resorting to hissy fits when someone offers constructive criticism. And hopefully it will continue to scare the hell out of these people.

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com.

---

===

no lnx

alternet

America is at a crossroads

Thom Hartmann November 18, 2024

Oligarchy is a form of government where the richest people in a country have captured its political system (or even filled it with themselves) and use that control to direct much of the government’s efforts to increasing their own wealth and power.

We’ll soon again have a billionaire president — helped to power by the richest billionaire on the planet — with his election campaign funded in large part by at least $2 billion in direct, reported donations from roughly 150 billionaire families.

It appears that the other roughly 350 billionaires who openly funded Trump in 2020 chose, this time, to instead donate to “dark money” SuperPACs created by five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court with Citizens United that don’t list their donors or, in many cases, even report their expenditures. With an estimated $15 billion spent on this 2024 election, their expenditures probably dwarf the ones we know about (and collectively they carpet-bombed Americans in often-deceptive political advertising).

And none of that covers the additional billions in “free media” Trump got from FOX “News,” rightwing hate radio, and Musk apparently altering the Xitter algorithm to favor messages friendly to himself and/or Trump while suppressing anti-Trump or pro-Harris posts.

This is extraordinarily bad for average Americans: With billionaires calling the shots in the upcoming Trump administration we can expect more pollution, fewer consumer protections, a war on unions, a frozen $7.25 federal minimum wage, bigger subsidies and grants to billionaires’ companies (from the fossil fuel industry to defense and SpaceX), lower taxes on the morbidly rich, and cuts to social services and entitlement programs.

But far more concerning is the simple reality that oligarchies are merely transitional forms of government, as I mentioned on Ali Velshi’s show Sunday morning and wrote in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy.

Ever since Ronald Reagan embraced neoliberalism (free trade, gut unions, low taxes on the morbidly rich) the top .01% have pillaged the American working class, essentially stealing over $50 trillion over the past 43 years and using that money to buy megayachts, penis-shaped rockets, European chateaus, private jets, and to fill their money bins.

So far, Republicans have been able to largely distract Americans from this naked theft by tossing out red herrings; blaming the ills of America on immigrants, big-city Black people, teachers, and the queer community. But there’s a limit to how long you can gaslight people; eventually working-class Americans figure out what’s going on and who’s behind their falling behind previous generations.

When that happens, oligarchies begin to tremble, something that’s been gradually happening for several decades. People protest, what’s left of union movements stand up, and progressive political parties begin to get a significant toehold on the national debate. The success of Bernie Sanders in his presidential efforts is an example of the leading edge of this dissatisfaction and dawning realization by average citizens of an early indicator that we were approaching this cusp.

Once protest against the oligarchs buying politicians and manipulating government reaches a critical mass, the oligarchy is faced with a terrible but necessary choice.

They can allow democracy to proceed and end up being voted out of power (as happened in Brazil when Bolsonaro was thrown out), sometimes even facing jail themselves (as happened here in 2020, although Merrick Garland dragged his feet for two long years).

Or the kleptocratic government can clamp down on their opposition, labeling protestors and democracy-advocating politicians as terrorists and “the enemy within,” using the power of the state (guns and jails) to suppress popular pro-democracy movements.

This latter path was the one Vladimir Putin chose as Russia moved from democracy to oligarchy and then to outright dictatorship. Speak up and go directly to jail, if you’re not killed outright like Alexi Navalny was. It’s also the path Viktor Orbán, the man many Republicans claim is their role model, has taken in Hungary.

And, if the rhetoric coming from Trump and his acolytes is translated into action starting in January, that is the path America will soon take.

Numerous Americans have been warning about this ever since Trump’s first term in office (and some, including me, for decades before).

Reagan began the destruction of the middle class (which has gone from two-thirds of us in 1981 when he came into office to 43% of us having that wealth today), Bush and Cheney used 9/11 to expand presidential authority, six corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court granted king-like powers to Trump, and now the wannabee Mussolini is echoing traditional fascist rhetoric about women, minorities, the press, and his political opposition.

Soon, millions of Americans will be confronted with a choice. Will they, like “good Germans,” Russians, Chinese, and Hungarians did, abandon politics and go back to sports, music, and keeping their heads down? Or will they — like millions in Brazil, Chile, and Ukraine — stand up, protest, join the Democratic Party (while it’s still legal) and form a real resistance to an oligarchy that appears bent on morphing itself into America’s first raw tyranny?

In particular, it appears we’re approaching a time when Democratic state governors will need our support in their efforts to resist Trump’s fascist impulses. And, as our mainstream media continues to act like Trump is merely business-as-usual, help sustain independent media that engages in radical truth telling (there are many on Substack: check out my recommendations).

And it’s not too late for America to return to democracy; the next election of great import will be in two years and we all need to prepare.

Those who have faced the violence of state oppression have told us about the importance of times like this.

Elie Wiesel said, “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented,” and Martin Luther King Jr. told us, “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”

We still have the power to make the choice to resist, awaken others, and organize. Seize it, before it’s gone.

==

https://www.alternet.org/local-peace-economy/our-relationships-keep-us-alive-lets-prioritize-them-2018

...My vision for 2018 is that we dedicate ourselves to addressing harm and repairing relationships within social justice movements. I spent most of 2017 traveling around the US, supporting groups organizing against intense political threats. Some were directly confronting white supremacists, others addressing violence against LGBTQ communities, supporting communities under threat of deportation, or working within Black communities facing state violence. Much of my work with these organizations was highly confidential crisis management.

During these repressive times, people assume that most of the crises in activism and organizing are external. Instead, I was working with groups where their relationships were so fraught that their political work had come to a standstill -- organizations where people had stopped talking to each other, where people were being abusive and bullying each other, where issues of violence and theft had arisen. In some cases, folks in the same collective were criticizing each other or their organizations on social media, but refusing to name these critiques in person.

In organization after organization, I saw the same pattern. Folks mobilize through an intense period. They do what we've all been taught and save their critique for later discussion. And when there's a break from the external crisis, they tear each other apart. As an organizer, I was taught to recruit people into the movement and to support them to stay involved. But I wasn't taught how to repair relationships or to prevent harm. Many of us aren't taught these skills.

Our campaigns, our base-building and our political analysis cannot and will not save us from this threat. Even worse, our external opponents not only are capitalizing on our fractures, but feeding them. Sometimes, we are our own strongest opposition. Without shifting our focus to repairing our relationships, our movements will rot from the inside out.

How to Ruin Movement Relationships

There are some surefire ways to ruin our movement relationships. Distrust is usually the source of conflict, and distrust can start from how we enter our meetings, actions and other movement spaces. A few causes of distrust that I've observed are misalignment, call-out culture, secret maneuvering and relationship neglect.

Misalignment: When Values and Actions Don't Match

...

==

The Moneyed Left

Many of the biggest donors to Mrs. Clinton’s super PAC have ties to the Democracy Alliance, a club that has strived to build a “progressive infrastructure” of left-leaning think tanks, activist groups and grassroots organizations. They include Mr. Soros, a founding member of the alliance; a fellow hedge fund investor, S. Donald Sussman; and Stephen M. Silberstein, a San Francisco-area programmer who made his fortune developing library computer systems. Mrs. Clinton is also backed by Amy Goldman Fowler, a philanthropist and heiress to a New York real estate fortune, and Patricia A. Stryker, one member of an influential group of Colorado progressive donors known as “the Gang of Four.”

==

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Will-Tell-The-People/dp/0671867407#reader_0671867407

 ==

see hedges death of lib class, also defund the left strat

stauber circular firing squad? http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/15/the-progressive-movement-is-a-pr-front-for-rich-democrats/

sellouts:

Some cap-and-trade supporters still see their 2009-10 push as a near miss that would have succeeded with just a few lucky breaks or tactical improvements. Joe Romm fiercely insists that there were 51 votes in the Senate and that President Obama could have thumped his chest and forced Congress to accept “reconciliation rules” setting a majority threshold and avoiding filibusters. Not only is there no evidence for this fantasy, but one insider wrote to alert me to the fact that, in April 2009, more than two dozen Democrats joined in voting for a GOP-sponsored bill that explicitly ruled out use of the 51-vote threshold for climate change legislation. This was a much stronger and more formal step than the usual process by which centrist Democrats take pro-reform stands in public but, behind the scenes, lobby Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid against either reconciliation (51-vote) rules or filibuster reform.

Many Midwestern and other Democrats do not want to be put on the spot by a majority rule on big issues such as cap-and-trade where they are cross-pressured. Their reluctance must be changed in future legislative battles, and the key to that will be increased pressure from citizens in their districts and states. If we are to pass climate legislation, Democrats will have to hold a Senate majority, and their majority will have to remove or weaken the 60-vote threshold.

orig KS

Senate rules out using budget process to pass cap-and-trade

By Kate Sheppard

Prospects for using the Congress’s budget process to pass cap-and-trade legislation were extinguished on Wednesday night as the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of a measure to bar that option.

The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), prohibits the “use of reconciliation in the Senate for climate change legislation involving a cap and trade system” — Congress-speak for “you can’t attach cap-and-trade to the budget bill.” The amendment passed by a vote of 67-31, with 26 Democrats voting for the provision.

Johanns and his allies were critical of the idea of passing major legislation outside of normal Senate procedure, which requires 60 votes end debate on a bill; the budget process requires only simple majority votes, taking away the filibuster option and making it possible to pass a cap-and-trade measure without any Republican support (Democrats hold 58 of the Senate’s 100 seats).

Democrats who voted with Johanns were: Max Baucus (Mont.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu(La.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Jim Webb (Va.).

Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who has been leading the charge to keep cap-and-trade prospects alive, noted that when Republicans controlled Congress, they used the tactic of budget reconciliation to pass a number of contentious issues.

A measure that Boxer and fellow cap-and-trade supporter Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) put forward today would have neutered the Johanns amendment, but it failed by a vote of 42-56.

barker pro publica (left dirty trick?)  http://www.propublica.org/article/in-montana-dark-money-helped-democrats-hold-a-key-senate-seat

Dec. 27:

In the waning days of Montana's hotly contested Senate race, a small outfit called Montana Hunters and Anglers, launched by liberal activists, tried something drastic.

It didn't buy ads supporting the incumbent Democrat, Sen. Jon Tester. Instead, it put up radio and TV commercials that urged voters to choose the third-party candidate, libertarian**Dan** **Cox**, describing Cox as the "real conservative" or the "true conservative."*

Who Will Tell The People? : The Betrayal Of A…

by William Greider

ch 6 on gray and RR OMB

Then, we searched for centrist, social market and leftist, socialist institutions.

Here's what we found:

The institute, part of a huge international philanthropic organization financed by Mr. Soros, is engaged in a variety of research projects and other programs in the United States, Eastern Europe and Asia, focusing on such areas as criminal justice reform, mental illness and domestic violence.

http://www.havingtheircake.com/content/3_Consequences/4_Reform/fact%20and%20opinion/Spreading%20the%20True%20Faith.php

Impressions

The centre-left agenda is researched and promoted by a tiny fraction of the number of institutions pushing a neo-liberal conservative line.

Also, and most significant, their missions and convictions are far wider and more diffuse than their conservative counterparts. Thus, they do not appear to be pursuing linked or coordinated campaigns. By and large, centre-left institutions are most concerned with social justice, aligning markets with the good of society and environmentalism, few of which issues seem to be central concerns for the neo-liberals.

...

The tone and intensity of much of the rhetoric about freedom, free markets and the evils of government have a quasi-religious flavour to them - as does the vehemence of attacks on alternative ideas. So somewhere in the background seems to be a religious fundamentalism which maybe derives from the US 'Christian' right wing, well-known for its abusive rhetoric. It seems a little unfair to accuse JK Galbraith of regarding people as 'being like whining sheep', Keynes as a commie or George Soros as 'An extreme left-winger' (John Bolton)!!

post Wisc lakoff

Scott Walker was just carrying out general conservative moral policies, taking the next step along a well-worn path.

What progressives need to do is clear. To people who have mixed values -- partly progressive, partly conservative -- talk progressive values in progressive language, thus strengthening progressive moral views in their brains. Never move to the right thinking you'll get more cooperation that way.

Start telling deep truths out loud all day every day: Democracy is about citizens caring about each other. The Public is necessary for The Private. Pensions are delayed earnings for work already done; eliminating them is theft. Unions protect workers from corporate exploitation -- low salaries, no job security, managerial threats, and inhumane working conditions. Public schools are essential to opportunity, and not just financially: they provide the opportunity to make the most of students' skills and interests. They are also essential to democracy, since democracy requires an educated citizenry at large, as well as trained professionals in every community. Without education of the public, there can be no freedom.

At issue is the future of progressive morality, democracy, freedom, and every aspect of the Public -- and hence the viability of private life and private enterprise in America on a mass scale. The conservative goal is to impose rule by conservative morality on the entire country, and beyond. Eliminating unions and public education are just steps along the way. Only progressive moral force can stop them.

The Little Blue Bookis a guide to how to express your moral views and how to reveal hidden truths that undermine conservative claims. And it explains why this has to be done constantly, not just during election campaigns. It is the cumulative effect that matters, as conservatives well know.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/little-blue-book-talking-democratic_b_1589234.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Most Liberal Members of Congress

By Carrie Mihalcik

Updated: February 28, 2011 | 10:11 p.m.

nine senators tied for most liberal in National Journal's 2010 Vote Ratings issue. Here's a look at the 10 most-liberal senators:

For the 10 most-liberal representatives head to the end of the gallery.

Tied for first—Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio

Although he could face a tough reelection battle in 2012, Brown shows no signs of trimming his sails. He was tied as the most-liberal senator in 2009, making it two years straight he’s been tied for most liberal.

Tied for first—Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.

Both Maryland senators tied most-liberal senator in the 2010 vote ratings. Cardin also tied for most-liberal senator in 2009.

Tied for first—Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Leahy was the 29th most-liberal senator in 2009 with a composite score of 73.8.

Tied for first—Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

Levin tied for 11th most liberal in the 2009 vote ratings with a composite score of 84.3.

Tied for first—Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.

Mikulski ranked eighth most liberal in 2009 with a composite score of 85.2, which was a more-liberal score then the 83.3 that tied her for most liberal in 2010.

Tied for first—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Reid made a big jump to tie as the most-liberal senator in the 2010 ratings. He was 22nd most liberal in 2009 and the 25th most liberal in 2008.

Tied for first—Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Sanders is the only independent senator with a most-liberal vote rating in 2010.

Tied for first—Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.

Stabenow ranked the 21st most-liberal senator in 2009 with a composite score of 78.3.

Tied for first—Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.

Whitehouse also tied for the title of most-liberal senator in 2009.

Tied for 10th—(left to right) Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Jack Reed, D-R.I.

Senators from seven states had identical liberal scores. Gillibrand and Schumer are one set of the pairs.

Top Ten Liberal Representatives

Tied for first—Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Judy Chu, D-Calif., John Lewis, D-Ga., Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., John Olver, D-Mass., Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.

(left to right) Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Judy Chu, D-Calif., Linda Sanchez, D-Calif. and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.

In 2010, four of the 10 most-liberal members of the House were women (pictured above). Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., almost made the list as the 11th most-liberal member in 2010, a big jump from the 51st most liberal in 2009.

Tied for eighth—(left to right) Reps. Edward Markey, D-Mass., George Miller, D-Calif., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

 left pacs:

PRIORITIES USA ACTION

A Democratic response to Rove’s American Crossroads, this group was founded in April by former White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton and former Rahm Emanuel aide Sean Sweeney. It will essentially function as an outside arm of the Obama reelection campaign.

The funders:

What you’ll hear: “The GOP will cut your Medicare to fund tax cuts for the rich.”

It has already run a few ads, including a spot blaming Republicans for opposing economic reforms, giving tax breaks to the wealthy, and favoring a plan to “essentially end Medicare.” Previewing the themes of Obama’s reelection campaign if Mitt Romney is the nominee, the group bought ads in South Carolina — timed for a visit by Romney — attacking Romney’s support of Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to end Medicare.

What you won’t hear: “Maintain status quo for Wall Street.” “Forever war in Afghanistan.” “Yes, we can … lead from behind.”

MAJORITY PAC

Founded this year by former aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Majority PAC is devoted to helping Democrats win in contested Senate races. “The best Senate strategists in the country are coming together for 2012 to make sure Senate races have every tool needed to win,” Susan McCue, one of the leaders of the effort and a former Reid chief of staff, told Politico. “We are approaching this as a team led by those who know how to win in the toughest, most competitive races across the country.” Reid himself along with Sen. John Kerry have sent out fundraising solicitations for the group, with Reid’s pitch explicitly framing Majority PAC as a means to counter “the deep pockets and nasty tactics of Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers and their network of corporate-backed special interest groups.”

The funders:

What you’ll hear: “Tea Party bullies want to cut your Medicare and Obamacare to pay for tax cuts for Wall Street.”

Noting that 23 Senate Democrats are up for reelection in 2012 — compared to just 10 Republicans — Majority PAC says it will run “a transparent, low-overhead, take-no-prisoners Independent Expenditure campaign, [to] aggressively contest critical open seats, exploit opportunities to take over Republican seats and expand our firewall, and respond to attacks from Rove and his allies on Democratic Senate candidates.” So far the group’s website features state-specific ads from an affiliate group seizing on the GOP plan to end Medicare.

What you won’t hear: “America yearns for Harry Reid’s Las Vegas gravitas.”

HOUSE MAJORITY PAC

Yet another liberal Super PAC with deep ties to Democratic officialdom, it was founded this past spring by Ali Lapp, the former campaign director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, along with a couple of other former DCCC officials. The goal: win a Democratic majority in the House.

The funders:

What you’ll hear: “Eric Cantor and Tea Party bullies want to wreck government and Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the rich.”

Like the other Dem Super PACs, the House Majority PAC has seized on Paul Ryan’s plan to end Medicare. Its website says, “We’re fighting against the recently-passed Republican budget, which provides trillions in new tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, but ends Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher program and forcing seniors to find and purchase private health insurance.” The House Majority PAC already ran an ad in New York’s special election attacking Republican Bob Turner on Medicare, and another ad against Wisconsin Republican Sean Duffy for his vote in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. The Duffy spot also echoed President Obama’s recent focus on private jet owners.

--- 

stien says blumenthal and nat'l committ respons philan did studies

at hudson ! talk http://www.hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/Transcript_2006_11_30.pdf

stein impressed with inclusiveness, patient capital, coordination and says lefy lacks

Gara L:soros fdn sep from pol activities; not into plo except that b2 2nd term threatened his work/issues; says rW aclu will not succeed (ahem), but does say circumvent courts will work ([and has]

goldwater now hero but was really out there, but you planned long term and made stuff happen once regarded at floridation wacko

problem id's in 1971: build systematically, plug the holes, start with leadership training, connect to universities

vig and weyrich say reverse engr Left in 70's

intermediasries: grover, weyrich,  CNP

right has founding prociples /frs 9locke etc) left does not; this hard to bring in univ. soros says uncertainty not good basis for pol action

hard to put left ideas on bumpersticker (or sound bite) nuanced

2004 nyt hist, McC-F enabled Soros (diluted industry)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/magazine/25DEMOCRATS.html?pagewanted=all

When measured in terms of electoral success, the growing imbalance between the parties is quantifiable. From the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 until the Republican takeover of 1994, Democrats never lost control of the House of Representatives for more than one election before regaining it, and that only happened twice. They have now failed to control the House in five straight elections. Similarly, for 46 of those years, Democrats ruled the Senate by a margin of at least 10 seats. In contrast, they have spent most of the last decade in the minority, and during that time they have never enjoyed a majority of more than a single vote. More sobering for Democrats, the realignment that began in the 1960's -- when the battles over civil rights and Vietnam began to drive white men and rural voters away from the party -- has finally begun to erode the party at its very foundation: the state and local level, where it was dominant for decades. Thirty years ago, Democrats could claim outright control of 37 state legislatures, compared with only 4 for Republicans; Democrats now control just 17.

''The deterioration is steady, and it's spreading like a cancer,'' says Patrick Caddell, the onetime strategist for Jimmy Carter and Gary Hart, who has been compiling this data from statistical abstracts. ''So much for thinking that if we could just go back to the glorious 90's, the party would be fine. The 90's were our worst decade since the 1920's.''

...

Then came the campaign finance law passed in 2002, known informally as McCain-Feingold (after its iconoclastic Senate sponsors, John McCain, a Republican, and Russell Feingold, a Democrat), which prohibited the parties from accepting soft money. Overnight, the era of the access donor essentially ended. Individual lawyers and executives could still wield influence by bundling small personal contributions from employees or colleagues, but their firms could no longer write the giant checks that let them rent out the party as if it were a billboard or a blimp.

For the ideological donors, however, the new era seemed quite promising. McCain-Feingold left untouched and unregulated a vehicle that had been little used on the national level up to that point: the 527. And last fall and winter, the surprising success of Howard Dean's campaign convinced a lot of wealthy liberals that a new ideological movement could be nurtured outside the constraints of the Democratic Party. By controlling 527's, donors believed, they could determine, to a greater extent than ever before, the message and the strategy of a Democratic presidential campaign. ''This is like post-Yugoslavia,'' Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, told me. ''We used to have a strongman called the party. After McCain-Feingold, we dissolved the power of Tito.''

Having financed projects in the former Communist bloc, Soros understood the opportunitites that political tumult can create. He and the more reclusive Peter Lewis began by contributing about $10 million each to America Coming Together (ACT), the largest of the new 527's, which was designed to do street-level organizing for the election; the donations enabled ACT to expand its canvassing campaign from five critical swing states to 17. ''I used 527's because they were there to be used,'' Soros said bluntly during a conversation in his Manhattan office.

...

y first meeting with Rob Stein occurred over breakfast at the Four Seasons hotel in Washington. Our conversation was strictly off the record, a sort of get-to-know-you chat. Our second meeting took place on a sun-bathed balcony outside a Starbucks near his home in northwest Washington. Stein, who is a young-looking 60, has a full head of gray curls and an air of serenity about him. He is a native West Virginian, although his accent, oddly, makes him sound like a Yankees fan. He carried with him a metal loose-leaf binder, which he laid on the table and kept always within his reach. In a short while, Stein said, I would become only the third person in Washington to possess my own copy of his presentation.

By the time we met, in the middle of May, Stein estimated that some 700 people had seen his PowerPoint show. He told me his story and explained how he had ended up at the center of a minimovement. He had been a Democratic operative, rising to become chief of staff at the Commerce Department under the late Ron Brown. Then he managed a venture capital firm. After 2000, he, like a lot of Democrats, watched with growing alarm as his party ceded ground at every level of government. ''I literally woke up the day after the 2002 elections, picked up the paper, had breakfast and we were living in a one-party country,'' he said. ''And there it was. That was my wake-up call.

''I said: 'O.K., there's now Republican dominance down the line. It's not only that they control the House and the Senate and the presidency. But it's growing. There's no end in sight.' It wasn't only that they had reached a milestone, but they were ascendant.''

Stein read a few reports that liberal research groups had published on the rise of the conservative movement. Then he began poring over tax forms from various conservative nonprofits and aggregating the data about fund-raising and expenditures. He spent hours online every night, between about 9 p.m. and 1 in the morning, reading sites like MediaTransparency.org, which is devoted to tracing the roots of conservative groups and their effect on the media. To call this an obsession somehow seems too mundane; Stein spent much of the spring of 2003 consumed with connecting the dots of what Hillary Clinton famously called the ''vast right-wing conspiracy'' and then translating it into flow charts and bullet points.

The presentation itself, a collection of about 40 slides titled ''The Conservative Message Machine's Money Matrix,'' essentially makes the case that a handful of families -- Scaife, Bradley, Olin, Coors and others -- laid the foundation for a $300 million network of policy centers, advocacy groups and media outlets that now wield great influence over the national agenda. The network, as Stein diagrams it, includes scores of powerful organizations -- most of them with bland names like the State Policy Network and the Leadership Institute -- that he says train young leaders and lawmakers and promote policy ideas on the national and local level. These groups are, in turn, linked to a massive message apparatus, into which Stein lumps everything from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal op-ed page to Pat Robertson's ''700 Club.'' And all of this, he contends, is underwritten by some 200 ''anchor donors.'' ''This is perhaps the most potent, independent institutionalized apparatus ever assembled in a democracy to promote one belief system,'' he said.

david horowitz
DTN DIRECTORYGROUPSISSUESFUNDERSINDIVIDUALSMEDIAACADEMIAPOLITICSARTS & CULTURE
One of the great myths of the left is that socialism is a movement of the people, the working classes, or the poor. In fact -- as Frederick Hayek pointed out long ago -- all socialist movements are the creation of intellectual elites, liberally pollinated by millionaires. Karl Marx was the kept intellectual of factory owner Frederick Engels; Bill Ayers, a leader of the terrorist cult called the Weatherman, was a scion of the American upper class; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, is a multi-millionairess; Michael Moore, leftwing propagandist, is a multi-millionaire who has profited handsomely from the "struggle." The Leftwing Millionaires Club is a very incomplete list designed to illustrate this point and to serve as a reminder that everything is not always what it appears. (Text: Frederick Hayek "The Intellectuals and Socialism," in Hayek, *Socialism and War*, University of Chicago Press, 1997)
LEFTWING MILLIONAIRES' CLUB
Anagnos, Aris
Arafat, Yasser
Baldwin, Alec
Baron, Fred
Belafonte, Harry
Benjamin, MedeaBenjamin, Medea

The Drudge factor

By Brent Budowsky - 06/14/10 05:49 PM ET

In the latest debate about Matt Drudge, Mark Halperin of Time magazine suggests that Drudge appeals to racism among a portion of his readers. I often agree with Halperin, but he misses the point.

Drudge does not appeal to racism. This is wrong about Drudge and insulting to his readers, and diverts attention from the big question: With so many wealthy liberals and Democrats, with Democrats controlling the presidency and Congress, and with Hollywood and New York full of brilliant, wealthy liberal stars and moguls, why does the right have such a media lead over the left?

Drudge is no different from elements of the press since Jefferson and Adams. They supported media that promoted their views and ridiculed their opponents’.

Drudge may be the most influential media figure today. He is read with devotion by political operatives, news editors, television producers, beat reporters and government leaders. Some in Congress even try to prevent their staff from reading Drudge. Fat chance!

The hand of Drudge heavily influences what is read in the papers, viewed on television and debated in national politics. Where is the liberal Drudge? With Democrats controlling so much of the information flow from the White House and Congress, why does a conservative have a monopoly on “the Drudge factor” while liberal Democrats are reduced to reading Drudge, reacting to Drudge and dishing dirt against their opponents to Drudge? Why does Fox News have a huge ratings advantage over MSNBC, even after sweeping tides for Democrats in 2006 and 2008?

Why is conservative radio light-years ahead of liberal radio in audience share, with the hapless Air America a perpetual bankrupt? Some liberal hosts have built significant audiences. There is discrimination by corporate radio in some markets. But I won’t push the liberal Fairness Doctrine issue, because it is a cop-out that will not affect the larger liberal media failure.

There are progressive media beachheads. Arianna Huffington is one. Ed Schultz has moved into radio, television and now publishing with a populist book. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have planted important flags on television.

Imagine if President Obama had appeared on MSNBC and liberal radio with his 13 million person list as an audience for a rousing appeal for the public option!

Beginning with Ronald Reagan in the 1970s, conservatives found large media investors with a movement commitment to issues and marketing savvy that turned masses of movement voters into mass audiences for television, radio and publishing.

Conservative media became a voice for a movement. The movement became a fungible audience swirling from radio to television to books. Drudge, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Andrew Breitbart and others are not a voice for Republicans. They are a megaphone for conservatives.

Major liberal investors and Obama’s aides do not envision a mass movement translated into media power. White House aides often show contempt for the liberal base. The strongest sector of liberal media strength, the Internet, is often derided by insiders rather than respected as conservatives respect their base.

High-level progressives from Washington to Hollywood have untapped potential to create media power. Liberal investors, Hollywood stars and media moguls can do what conservatives do.

Until then, they should accept that Matt Drudge’s influence was achieved the old-fashioned way. He earned it.

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander, then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. He can be read on The Hill’s Pundits Blog and reached at brentbbi@webtv.netay, February 14, 2005 --Hits: 139,206,43kerpen afp chart 8

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/files/GreenJobs_Network1.pdf  afp chart  acorn , gore VC, soros

Stein and Lapham would have you believe that conservative foundations both outweigh liberal foundations and suppress the liberal message with their big spending. But that's not the case. Stein estimates assets of $2 billion for the eight major conservative family foundations in 2001, which sounds gargantuan. But that's chump change compared to the holdings of liberal foundations. Writing in the American Prospectin 1998, Karen Paget notes that none of these conservative foundations rank in the top 10 American foundations measured by assets, and most don't even break into the top 50.

What sort of media do liberal foundations fund? The liberal John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which reported assets of $4.2 billion in 2003, made grants of $7.5 million to various liberal media projects, including Public Radio International ($2.5 million), WNET documentary films ($800,000), WGBH documentary film ($400,000), and other TV, documentary, and radio initiatives, according to the foundation's annual report.

The Schumann Center for Media and Democracy (assets of $60 million in 2002) gave money to liberal media organizations in 2003 at rates that would make a Scaife faint. The group's federal Form 990 records it giving $4.3 million away to TomPaine.com/the Florence Fund ($2 million), Sojournersmagazine ($500,000), an investigative fund for Salon.com ($277,785), the Nation Institute ($115,000), and various radio, film, and magazine projects (the Washington Monthlyand the American Prospectgot piddly amounts). It also paid Bill Moyers, host of PBS's Now, $200,000 to serve as its president.

Paget argues persuasively that conservative foundations are more effective than liberal foundations because they're better at giving money away, not because they give more of it away. Conservatives tend to 1) give general support, letting the grantee decide how to spend the money; and 2) they tend to renew those gifts year after year, letting the grantee take root as an institution and freeing it from running in circles on the fund-raising wheel. Conservative magazines such as Commentary,the American Spectator, theNational Interest, thePublic Interest, theNew Criterion, and Policy Review have flourished because of steady funding by benefactors.

Liberal foundations, on the other hand, tend to limit their donations to specific projects and don't make multiple deposits over the years. In other words, a liberal propaganda mill exists; it just operates under different philanthropic principles than the conservative one.