Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats arerenewing theircalls for gun reform after reports ofa mass shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, on Sunday.

Multiple people are dead after gunfire erupted at the church, which is not far outside San Antonio, according toreports.

Sens. Bob CaseyRobert (Bob) Patrick CaseyFive takeaways from new Senate fundraising reports Vulnerable Dems: Trump hasn't won them over on taxes Trump gives Barletta edge in crowded Pa. primary MORE Jr. (Pa.), Dick DurbinRichard (Dick) Joseph DurbinDem senators write DHS calling for accurate hurricane death counts Sessions spars with Dems at heated oversight hearing Durbin slams Sessions for pulling funds from sanctuary cities MORE (Ill.) and Kamala HarrisKamala Devi Harris19 sens question EPA methodology behind Clean Power Plan repeal Overnight Energy: Montana energy firm feuds with San Juan mayor over contract Pelosi calls for DACA deal ahead of spending debate MORE (Calif.) were among the Democrats who urged Congress to act in response to the latest deadly shooting.

"Im thinking of and praying for all those impacted by the shooting in Texas. In addition to offering my prayers and thoughts I also believe Congress must take action on gun violence," Casey wrote in two separate tweets.

In addition to offering my prayers and thoughts I also believe Congress must take action on gun violence (2/2)

"The shooter turned his gun on people -- kids -- in a place of worship. America is in the grips of a gun violence crisis. Congress must act," Durbin tweeted.

The shooter turned his gun on people -- kids -- in a place of worship.America is in the grips of a gun violence crisis. Congress must act. https://t.co/CIJX3jM3Tq

Harris, a possible 2020 presidentialcontender,also condemned senseless gun violence after the shooting.

Senseless gun violence has torn apart another community this time in a house of worship. When do we say enough is enough? https://t.co/gsW1KN54xc

"Enough is enough," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)said in a series of tweets. "Now is the time for commonsense gun violence prevention steps. Congressional complicity must end."

Enough is enough. Now is the time for commonsense gun violence prevention steps. Congressional complicity must end.

Sens. Dianne FeinsteinDianne Emiel FeinsteinFeinstein blasts 'immoral travesty' after immigration agents detain girl with cerebral palsy Dem mega-donor Steyer runs ads calling on Hoyer to support impeaching Trump Trump's tax plan and the certainty of Democratic resistance MORE (Calif.) and Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenOvernight Regulation: Trump declares opioids a public health emergency | Mark Kelly lobbied Scalise on guns | Warren rips plans to ease bank oversight | Coal industry advocate tapped for mining regulator Overnight Finance: House adopts Senate budget, taking step to tax reform | GOP worries Trump feuds will endanger tax plan | Trump talks NAFTA withdrawal with senators | Treasury calls for looser oversight of insurers Trump's tax plan and the certainty of Democratic resistance MORE (Mass.) also joined their colleagues in condemning the lack of action.

When will this end? When will we decide that we cant accept massacres in our places of worship, schools, or at concerts? When will we actually do something about it?" Feinstein wrote in a statement.

Im horrified by the news of this latest mass shooting. My thoughts are with all of those in Sutherland Springs. https://t.co/gCTIsAXQX6

"Thoughts & prayers are not enough, GOP. We must end this violence. We must stop these tragedies. People are dying while you wait," Warren wrote in one tweet.

Thoughts & prayers are not enough, GOP. We must end this violence. We must stop these tragedies. People are dying while you wait.

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, called on his Congressional colleagues to show "courage" and take a stand against gun violence.

Sickened by yet another mass shooting leaving people dead & injured. Enough! Congress must muster the courage to help prevent gun violence.

Sen. Chris MurphyChristopher (Chris) Scott MurphyDems to introduce bill barring Trump from preemptive strikes without Congress approval Juan Williams: Trump's cynical sabotage of ObamaCare In Congress, fears grow about lack of strategy on multiple battlefields MORE (D-Conn.), meanwhile, released a lengthy statement in which he called on his colleagues in Congress to hold themselves accountable.

"Ask yourself how can you claim that you respect human life while choosing fealty to weapons-makers over support for measures favored by the vast majority of your constituents," Murphy wrote.

Witnessessaid an armed man walked into the First Baptist Church around 11:30 a.m. and opened fire.

Police have notconfirmed the officialnumber of fatalities.

The local news stationKSATreported that the gunman was also killed.

The attack comes more than a month after the nation's deadliest mass shooting in modern history, in which a gunman opened fire on a country music festival in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and injuringhundreds more.

President Trump, who'sembarking on a12-day tripto Asia, tweetedshortly after reports of the shooting surfaced.

"May God be w/ the people of Sutherland Springs, Texas. The FBI & law enforcement are on the scene. I am monitoring the situation from Japan," Trump wrote.

Updated 4:50 p.m.

See original here:
Dems renew calls for gun control in wake of Texas church ...

Former President Barack Obama, right, speaks as Virginia's Democratic gubernatorial candidate Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam listens during a rally in Richmond

This article originally appeared at The Huffington Post. Subscribe here.

The Democratic Party, Democratic voters, and grassroots progressive activists should be in a state of high agitation, focused on one thingcontaining Trump, his fake populism, and his Republican allies.

Instead, the party of the people is withering. Energy on the ground is low, infighting is high. The run-up to the Virginia gubernatorial election is feeling sickeningly like the last days of Hillary Clintons campaign.

The most recent reliable poll, The New York Times/Siena poll, shows the Democrat, Ralph Northam, up by just three points, 43 to 40, with 17 percent undecided. There is the same sort of chasm by race and class as in the Clinton-Trump race, with non-college educated whites favoring Republican Ed Gillespie by 40 points.

These are people, based on social class, who should be Democrats. If the lackluster, accident-prone, and risk-averse Democrat, Lieutenant Governor Northam, does pull out a narrow win, it will only be because his Republican rival Gillespie, is a longtime party hack and lobbyist, and even less convincing than Donald Trump as a populist.

That, however, has not stopped Gillespie from using the Trump playbook of stirring up racial and anti-immigrant hatreds. And in the absence of a compelling economic-populist alternative, it works.

Gillespie baited Northam into saying hed sign legislation banning sanctuary cities, even though there are none in Virginia and this is a non-issue. That was sufficient to cause Democrats for America (DFA), the group founded by Howard Dean, to announce it was no longer supporting Northam.

Its hard to know which action was more perverseNorthams stance or DFAs.

Gillespie is also running an ad with the tagline, Youd never take a kneeso take a stand on Election Day: Vote Gillespie. Nice touch.

Voters will only fall for this stuff if the other side is not offering anything real.

But if you asked a computer to design a Democrat who is the opposite of an economic populist, it would devise a creature like Northam. The other day, pollster Stan Greenberg, who has advised the Clintons for three decades, and who recently wrote a scathing critique of the sheer incompetence of Hillary Clintons presidential campaign, told The New Yorker magazine:

Look at Virginia right now. We have a candidate running as Hillary Clinton. He is running on the same kind of issues, and has the same kind of view of the world. Its the Republicans who talk about the economy, not the Democrats.

Though Trumps popularity ratings are at record lows, Northam has declined even to attack Trump.

Meanwhile over in New Jersey, the Democratic nominee, Phil Murphy, is comfortably ahead, thanks to the gift that keeps on giving, incumbent governor Chris Christie. Murphys opponent is Christies lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno, who is lagging well behind.

But waitHillary Clinton got tarred for taking some speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. The Democrat in the New Jersey race, Murphy, comes from Goldman Sachs. So did the last New Jersey Democratic governor, Jon Corzine. These guys are actually relative liberals, but cant we look elsewhere for Democratic candidates? Corzine, as the incumbent, was beaten by Chris Christie.

In the past couple of weeks, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tom Perez, has executed a purge of leading Sanders supporters. Donna Brazile, who served as interim DNC chair after Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the Obama-era chair, was forced out, published book excerpts supporting Bernie Sanderss view that the nomination was effectively stolen by the DNC, which was supposed to be neutral, but instead supported Clinton. Maybe Brazile could have waited until after Tuesdays elections?

Oh, and one of the wealthiest and best connected Democratic lobbyists, Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, managed to get caught in special counsel Robert Muellers dragnet. Tony Podesta evidently was working with Paul Manafort on behalf of a front group for the pro-Moscow Ukrainian government in power at the time. Its stories like this that display a bipartisan special interest swamp, and turn working people against both parties.

Meanwhile, recriminations among the diverse elements of what should be the Democrats broad coalition are at a rolling boil. There is bitterness among feminists that deeply seeded misogyny cost Hillary Clinton the presidency.

I have had arguments with numerous feminist friends to the effect that a more compelling woman candidate such as Elizabeth Warren could have defeated Donald Trump in 2016, and could win in 2020. But some of my feminist friends counter that it would be more prudent to nominate a Midwestern white guy, say Ohio Democratic senator Sherrod Brown. There has to be something perverse about feminists arguing that misogyny is so pervasive that its better not to nominate a female.

Meanwhile, on the racial front, there is understandable bitterness among many African American Democrats that whites, even progressive whites, failed to protect blacks from deepening racism. Conversations about the need to talk about class as well as race tends to produce vituperation about white privilege.

In short, the progressive side of the political spectrum is a cauldron of grievances, each understandable and legitimate in its own right. But if Democrats cant find areas of common ground, then Trump and his imitators will keep winning.

Somehow, Democrats need to nominate more compelling candidates, who can narrate the grievances of ordinary Americans in a convincing way and propose drastic remedies. Democrats need to remember the larger stakes and try to limit the infighting.

Out of this mess, a leader will emerge as the Democratic standard bearer for the 2020 election. Before that nominee can take on Donald Trump, or Mike Pence, or whoever the Republicans put up, he or she will need to restore some semblance of Democratic purpose and unity. Right now, that challenge seems more daunting than the election itself.

See the article here:
Wither the Democrats?

On average, middle class families earning less than $86,000 would see a tax increase under the Republican tax reform plan. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), in a tweet, Oct. 27

The average tax increase on families nationwide earning up to $86,100 would be $794.00 Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), in a tweet, Oct. 24

Under GOP plan, U.S. families making ~$86k see avg tax increase of $794. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), in a tweet, Oct. 24

A reader asked whether Harriss tweet was accurate. But when we looked into it, it turns out that many Democrats were tweeting the same talking point that middle-class families would face an average tax increase under the GOP plan. The three tweets below are just a sampling.

It turns out this Twitterblizzard is the result of a bad game of telephone.

We traced the talking point to a document put out by the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, essentially the communications arm of Senate Democrats. That document laid out a series of statistics, tailored for each individual state, that purported to show how damaging the evolving Republican tax plan would be for middle-class Americans.

That document had this line on each state page: The average tax increase on families nationwide earning up to $86,100 would be $794, a significant burden for middle-class families.

This factoid in turn was sourced to a report by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee. So we tracked that down.

That report had this line: If enacted, the Republican tax reform proposal would saddle 8 million households that earn up to $86,100 with an average tax increase of $794 a substantial expense for working families.

Note the difference. The original report referred to 8 million households receiving a $794 tax increase. Somehow, when it got communicated down the line, that nuance was lost and it was translated into a talking point referring to all working-class families.

Latoya Veal, spokeswoman for the JEC Democrats, explained how the number was calculated. The staff took an estimate by the Tax Policy Center, based on the GOPs Unified Framework released in September.The staff then focused on the households (technically tax units in the TPC document) making under $86,100 the bottom three quintiles of taxpayers that would face a tax increase. Weighting the tax increase by the number of people in each quintile, the staff came up with an averagetax hike of $794 for the people receiving a tax increase.

But notice the funny thing about this calculation: Only a small percentage (6.5 percent) of the nearly 122 million households in the bottom three quintiles will actually face a tax increase.

Meanwhile, more than 97 million (80 percent) will receive a tax cut. Doing the math the same way the JEC staff did, we come up with an average tax cut of about $450 for those 97 million households.

Indeed, at the far end of the chart, you will see that every quintile on average receives a tax cut not a tax increase.

In any tax bill, there are going to be winners and losers. The top quintile receives the biggest average tax cut, both in dollars and change in after-tax income but also has the largest percentage (32.3 percent) of households that will face a tax increase.

There are different ways to approach the TPC estimates, Veal said. Key Republicans have been asked whether they could guarantee that no middle-class family will get a tax increase under their plan. Our calculation shows that some households 8 million making under $86,100 will receive an increase based on TPCs estimates.

By the time we contacted the DPCC about the error, The Fact Checkers questions must have circulated.

Once we realized that the original report could have been clearer, we updated it immediately, a spokesman said. Now the updated report makes clearer that 8 million households could face a tax increase though again it fails to acknowledge that most people would have a tax cut.

The inaccurate tweets remain.

In their haste to condemn the GOP tax plan, Democrats have spread far and wide the false claim that families making less than $86,100 on average will face a hefty tax hike. Actually, its the opposite. Most families in that income range would get a tax cut.Any Democrat who spread this claim should delete their tweets and make clear they were in error.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

Do you rate this claim as true or false? More Pinocchios for false, fewer based on your opinion of the statement's truthfulness. (The check mark means you think the statement is true, not that you agree with the rating.)

We need to verify that you are an actual person.

This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population.

Share the Facts

2017-11-02 11:10:18 UTC

1

1

5

Four Pinocchios

On average, middle class families earning less than $86,000 would see a tax increase under the Republican tax reform plan.

Kamala Harris

Senator (D-Calif.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris

in a tweet

Friday, October 27, 2017

2017-10-27

Share the Facts

2017-11-02 11:13:03 UTC

1

1

5

Four Pinocchios

Under GOP plan, U.S. families making ~$86k see avg tax increase of $794.

Jeff Merkley

Senator (D-Ore.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Merkley

in a tweet

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

2017-10-24

Share the Facts

2017-11-02 11:16:09 UTC

1

1

5

Four Pinocchios

The average tax increase on families nationwide earning up to $86,100 would be $794.00

Bob Casey

Senator (D-Pa.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Casey_Jr.

in a tweet

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

2017-10-24

Read the original:
Senate Democrats falsely claim GOP tax plan will raise taxes ...

I havent seen much evidence that the party and its crop of potential presidential candidates are up for it. I was disappointed, for example, that after the far-right rally in Charlottesville, Va., while Democrats duly denounced President Trumps reaction and the rallys white supremacism and the rights defense of Confederate statuary (tough calls!), no one who purports to want to lead the party and country out of this darkness stepped forward to offer broader reflections on that grim episode.

Bah! Its too early for that, some will say. The Democrats are an opposition party right now, and their main job is to oppose. And under the leadership of Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Nancy Pelosi, theyre doing that quite well. But I dont think Democratic reluctance here is just a matter of timing.

The Democrats are undergoing a historic transformation, from being the party that embraced neoliberalism in the early 1990s to one that is rejecting that centrist posture and moving left. Theres plenty about this to cheer the neoliberal Democratic Party didnt do nearly enough to try to arrest growing income inequality, among other shortcomings.

There will be necessary internecine fights, and they boil down to loyalty tests on particular positions demanded by the vanguard. Consider the debate within the party on Senator Bernie Sanderss Medicare for All bill, which most (though not all) 2020 contenders rushed to attach themselves to. To fail to sign on to that legislation is to open oneself to criticism, even abuse, although its less a piece of legislation than a goal.

Forget about whos right and wrong in these debates. Time will sort that out. My point is that they tend to consume a party experiencing a shift. The Democratic Party, because it is an amalgam of interest groups in a way the Republican Party is not, has always had a tendency to elevate the candidate who can check the most boxes. The current internal dynamics exacerbate that. Its also worth remembering that no one besides party activists cares.

So when the partys leaders tussle over this or that policy, they also need to take a step back, to see the direction the country the West itself is heading, and take a stand on it. This isnt just a matter of high-minded idealism; its what separates great politicians from merely good ones.

History tells us that the transformative politicians, the ones who can change the countrys direction and will really matter in the history books, are the ones who can do both. I think there have been four of them in the past century: Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Why Roosevelt and Reagan should be obvious. I know some would dispute my choice of Mr. Clinton, but he rescued a party that had lost three presidential elections in a row and was being read last rites by some pundits in 1991 (the extent to which he changed the countrys fundamental direction is debatable). Mr. Obama made history and redrew the electoral map. All four were able to speak both to their base and beyond it by identifying the challenge of the moment and persuading majorities that they had some answers.

The future of the Western democratic project is the fundamental issue of our era. Its under attack from Vladimir Putin and Steve Bannon and many people in between (and to the extent that he backs Mr. Bannons purge of the Republican Party, from the president himself; think about that).

Democrats cant duck this question and expect the broader electorate to see them as prepared to lead. To his credit, Mr. Sanders did talk a bit about all this in a foreign-policy speech in late September at the same Missouri college where Winston Churchill gave his Iron Curtain speech, noting an international order that is under great strain.

The Democrats were the party that created this order after World War II. They must now be the party that fixes and saves it.

See the rest here:
The Silence of the Democrats - The New York Times

In 1939, Winston Churchill famously described Russia as a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, which is proving an apt description of the scandal playing out nearly eight decades later about Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.

As it turns out, our very own Democratic Party was doing some meddling of its own using some of the Russians own tactics while using Russians as a foil. Thats the latest twist in a plot line that makes a John le Carr novel look like a kids coloring book.

The story started, as you recall, in late July of 2016, during the Republican nominating convention in Cleveland, when the international whistleblowing outfit WikiLeaks published thousands of purloined emails from the Democratic National Committee. Their content was somewhat embarrassing to the Democratic establishment, inasmuch as it bolstered the suspicions of the Bernie Sanders faithful, who believed that under party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz the DNC had engaged in various subterfuges to help Hillary Clinton quell the Sanders insurrection.

These efforts included dispatching moles to his campaign events, and paying Hillary supporters to troll Bernie on social media. Although Wasserman Schultz was forced out, the DNC hierarchy and the Clinton campaign needed to respond. They could have simply told the truth and apologized, the truth being that of course party regulars favored Clinton over Sanders: Bernie hadnt even called himself a Democrat until he began running for the partys nomination while Hillary Clinton was Mrs. Democrat. That admission could have been accompanied by expression of regret for their excesses.

But repentance is not in the Clintons playbook. In this case, neither was candor. Instead, the campaigns top officials formulated their lines of attack. First, they cast aspersions on the veracity of the WikiLeaks emails. Second, they insisted this was all a Russian plot to help Donald Trump. It was a calculated one-two punch. By calling into question the authenticity of the emails, Clinton didnt have to respond to their contents the sabotaging of Sanders campaign. In boxing vernacular, that was the left jab setting up the right cross, which was the Russia angle. The jab was a lie: They knew the emails were accurate. Playing the Russia card was, at best, disingenuous. Thanks to the Washington Post, we now know that the Clinton organization had been plotting a preemptive strike against Trump for months when it hired an anti-Republican opposition research outfit called Fusion GPS to go to Russia and dig up dirt on him.

What emerged from those efforts was the salacious anti-Trump dossier produced by ex-British spy Christopher Steele and shopped around to liberal media outlets until BuzzFeed, an online site so hostile to Donald Trump that it refused to accept Republican ads in 2016, took the bait. Virtually everything Clinton and her surrogates have said about Russia and Trump from that day to this has been either a direct falsehood, or a lie of omission. Following up on a tip that Clinton and the DNC were paying Fusion GPS, New York Times reporters were told vigorously by Marc Elias, counsel to both the DNC and the Clinton campaign, that there was nothing to it. Yet, according to the Post expose, there was a lot to it Elias was the one who hired Fusion GPS.

Elias, now representing former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, also reportedly sat mute beside his client while Podesta told a Senate committee that he didnt know who financed Steeles efforts. Then theres Clinton herself. Shes played up the Steele dossier while on the book tour for What Happened, her post-election finger-pointing. In the book itself, she wrote:

In the summer of 2016, according to the Washington Post, the FBI began investigating a dossier prepared by a well-respected former British spy that contained explosive and salacious allegations about compromising information the Russians had on Trump. The intelligence community took the dossier seriously enough that it briefed both President Obama and President-elect Trump on its contents before the inauguration.

Heres whats missing from that account: Clintons campaign paid this well-respected former British spy, setting in the motion the entire affair. Lets stop and consider what that means for a moment. Nobody has revealed how much money was involved but Elias law firm was paid $12.4 million by the DNC and the campaign during the election. How much of that went to Steele? How much did Steele pay his former Russian contacts to spin their spicy tale of Trump cavorting with Russian prostitutes, masking real estate deals as bribes, and generally setting himself up to be blackmailed?

I dont want to cast aspersions on Michael Steele, whom many besides Hillary describe as respected, but theres something about spreading so much cash around as part of an investigation that makes the information suspect. Its why checkbook journalism is rarely considered investigative reporting at all: The money creates an incentive to make things up. Viewed through this prism, it all looks less like a genuine investigation and more like a sting operation orchestrated by the Democrats to win an election.

To this day, the only regret expressed by Clinton or her supporters is that they couldnt place the Steele dossier in the media before the election, though it wasnt for lack of trying. Even without it, nearly every prominent Democrat, including Clinton and President Obama warned of Russian meddling during the last two weeks of the campaign. In the end, it wasnt enough, so after the election, Team Clinton decided to keep using the Russian angle, both to excuse their failure and undermine the candidate who actually won.

Less than 24 hours after Hillarys concession speech, Podesta and Campaign Manager Robby Mook convened a staff meeting at Clintons Brooklyn headquarters to formalize this attack. The effort was described by authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes in a book that explains what happened more insightfully than Mrs. Clintons memoir.

For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public, they wrote. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

But heres the problem. The Russian government was interfering in the U.S. election. Among other scams, Russian internet trolls spread anti-Hillary rumors and fake news. Yes, the DNC trolled Bernie Sanders, but this was a vastly more sophisticated effort. And while Russians are no more monolithic than Americans, if any part of the Steele dossier is accurate, Russia was playing both sides of the fence. But why?

It was while trying to discern Russias motives and future course of action that Winston Churchill invoked his riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma line. Thats the famous part of the quote. There was more, however. But perhaps there is a key, Churchill added. That key is Russian national interest.

In the end we may learn that Vladimir Putins goal is simply setting Americans at one anothers throats. If so, he seems to have succeeded. Yet, one wonders: to what aim? Is Russia such a basket case that Putin and his minions can only feel superior by watching us hammer away at each other? If so, perhaps Republicans and Democrats can be induced not to cooperate.

Correction:Christopher Steele is theex-British spy thatproduced theanti-Trump dossier.

Carl M. Cannon is executive editor and Washington Bureau chief of RealClearPolitics.

Read the original here:
How Hillary and the Democrats played Russia card